The Other View on Compo Claims

111KAB

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

I do my job properly too.

Good to hear as the engineer(s) on my delayed flight didn't plus there are a few on this forum who could provide you with details regarding the lax attitude some engineers exhibit in respect of the statements they provide to courts.


However that is not the point of your post ... so I raise the point again .... I would be more than welcome to both expend my time and cost in respect of a venue/time to discuss this matter so why do you and your colleagues take up this offer?

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

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?

Absolutely not, but that's not a safety/maintenance related issue is it? Like I say, there are area where the airlines have been taking the micky, but the aspect I'm talking about isn't one of them.

jpsartre

Okay, as I see it your point it has nothing to with fairness then but is purely a point about safety.

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

Good to hear as the engineer(s) on my delayed flight didn't plus there are a few on this forum who could provide you with details regarding the lax attitude some engineers exhibit in respect of the statements they provide to courts.


However that is not the point of your post ... so I raise the point again .... I would be more than welcome to both expend my time and cost in respect of a venue/time to discuss this matter so why do you and your colleagues take up this offer?

To be fair, it's difficult for me to comment on that. I got some of Vauban's post earlier in the thread about that, and I have to say, from what he said, that it's quite possible that the engineer wouldn't have those details. To expect the eng to know how long it had been fitted is expecting a lot - he wouldn't have been concerned about that, more concerned with getting it serviceable, and it's a pain of a job usually too. I don't think engineers are going to make particularly good witnesses for the respondent either, some poor decisions right down the line by the sound of it.
It doesn't detract from Vauban's point, merely that these things occur, and it does look like Monarch could've handled the aftermath better. I'm not unreasonable about this stuff, I just think that circa 200 people at 200/400/600euro apiece is not sustainable if you want, as I mentioned in a previous post, to continue with affordable holidays and weekend breaks, unless you're willing to pay for it in the long run.

I have no particular issue meeting with you, though it would be of limited value. And who knows, you might be a management lurker

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

Okay, as I see it your point it has nothing to with fairness then but is purely a point about safety.

It's a bit like this. As I said earlier, I have, from the very start of my career, had safety first as the driver. Not just me, it's endemic in aircraft maintenance. Now, because we live in a financially driven world, a monetary value has been put on maintaining that safety and not just in the maintenance itself, but in punishment for doing it.

It feels wrong to me to punish an organisation for having a focus on that, which ultimately is to the public's benefit. Does that make sense?

Vauban

jpsartre wrote: »

Okay, as I see it your point it has nothing to with fairness then but is purely a point about safety.

But what is his point about safety? That airlines are cutting corners in order to meet On Time Performance targets? I find that very difficult to believe.

But I had a question (genuinely): if all planes are maintained as well as each other, why does OTP differ so much for airlines operating the same route? As I mentioned earlier, on the Gatwick-Sharm route Monarch's plus three hour delays happened with one in 20 flights; easyJet's one in three hundred.

111KAB

I just reiterate ... you would be better off spending your time watching Eastenders or whatever. On here you are facing a loosing battle and if I employed you I would be disappointed you felt the need to defend your indefensible position and just wound people up to be more determined to pursue their claim.

jpsartre

Vauban wrote: »

But what is his point about safety? That airlines are cutting corners in order to meet On Time Performance targets? I find that very difficult to believe.

I do too and OP's own claims in post 29 seems to contradict the very idea. Also, the flipside is that airlines are encouraged to use planes that are less likely to go tech in the first place which all things being equal should improve safety.

SpannerMonkey

Vauban wrote: »

But what is his point about safety? That airlines are cutting corners in order to meet On Time Performance targets? I find that very difficult to believe.

But I had a question (genuinely): if all planes are maintained as well as each other, why does OTP differ so much for airlines operating the same route? As I mentioned earlier, on the Gatwick-Sharm route Monarch's plus three hour delays happened with one in 20 flights; easyJet's one in three hundred.

From these statistics, it's very clear to me that easy is the carrier of choice then!

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

I do too and OP's own claims in post 29 seems to contradict the very idea. Also, the flipside is that airlines are encouraged to use planes that are less likely to go tech in the first place which all things being equal should improve safety.

I'm struggling to get your first point, but then I'm a bit of a thicky I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

On the second, well goodbye low cost innit! Do you remember how the irish lads did a bit of foot stamping when Boeing wouldn't give him the same deal as after 9/11? The new babies cost money, paid for from somewhere....