The Other View on Compo Claims

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

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.

oh, come on 111KAB, you can do better than this.
I know I'm not here to convert anyone! To imply that you're more likely to pursue a claim because of what I'm saying is farcical - people don't just stumble on here, they come in with blood in their eye from a scrap at the airport.

The good people here are claiming regardless.

111KAB

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

oh, come on 111KAB, you can do better than this.
I know I'm not here to convert anyone! To imply that you're more likely to pursue a claim because of what I'm saying is farcical - people don't just stumble on here, they come in with blood in their eye from a scrap at the airport.

The good people here are claiming regardless.

All I can say is I tried my best to try and convince you that this was not the correct forum to post on .... you disagreed (as is your prerogative) .... everyone to their own but given your posts it makes me (and my colleagues) more determined to correct the indiscretion that occurs in respect of 261/2004 ... not due to a scrap at the airport but due to 26 hours of not knowing what the hell was happening. To coin a phrase ... you shoot yourselves in the foot .... you may not believe it but I cannot see you have helped your cause one iota in this situation ... rather the reverse ... I presume (possibly) that is what you/your employers desired??

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

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

In post 29 you said that there were strict regulations as far as maintenance was concerned and that everyone was pretty much equal because they had to live up to those standards. The claim that EU261 makes flying less safe, hwowever, rests on the assumption that it causes some airlines to skimp on safety. Well they can't both be right, right?

I have no idea why you think EU261 means a goodbye to lowcost. The regulations have been around for a decade now and lowcost airlines are doing just fine. In fact they generally operate a younger fleet and have very good punctuality records.

WPC123

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

oh, come on 111KAB, you can do better than this.
I know I'm not here to convert anyone! To imply that you're more likely to pursue a claim because of what I'm saying is farcical

I'm feeling the need to claim if the airlines have engineers like Spanner Monkey - I have 3 years to go but if in a battle against this guy/lady I may win! Spanner who do you work for please?

SpannerMonkey

WPC123 wrote: »

I'm feeling the need to claim if the airlines have engineers like Spanner Monkey - I have 3 years to go but if in a battle against this guy/lady I may win! Spanner who do you work for please?

If you have a justified claim, then more power to your cause.
I see no reason in anything I've said to justify your view, other than to be argumentative.

But that's the nature of forums.

I've previously stated why I'm unwilling to say who I work for. Not that it's relevant to a justified claim anyway.

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

In post 29 you said that there were strict regulations as far as maintenance was concerned and that everyone was pretty much equal because they had to live up to those standards. The claim that EU261 makes flying less safe, hwowever, rests on the assumption that it causes some airlines to skimp on safety. Well they can't both be right, right?

I have no idea why you think EU261 means a goodbye to lowcost. The regulations have been around for a decade now and lowcost airlines are doing just fine. In fact they generally operate a younger fleet and have very good punctuality records.

Right, got it.
My point is that the majority of airlines, currently, will maintain as per history. If, as I suspect may well be the case, that Thomson and Jet2 fail at the Supreme Court, then we're into different territory. I think there's an answer to your second point in that too.

Is that a fair comment? (Nothing specific against either airline in that, before anyone starts...)

WPC123

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

I've previously stated why I'm unwilling to say who I work for.

Pity you don't have the 'balls' to back up things ... nice sitting by a keyboard spouting off the rights and wrongs of claiming without having the guts to 'really' back up your claims so probably a bit of a worry you sign off the sheet when the next plane I go on has its annual service but in that case you may use your correct name/sign on ... who knows?

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

All I can say is I tried my best to try and convince you that this was not the correct forum to post on .... you disagreed (as is your prerogative) .... everyone to their own but given your posts it makes me (and my colleagues) more determined to correct the indiscretion that occurs in respect of 261/2004 ... not due to a scrap at the airport but due to 26 hours of not knowing what the hell was happening. To coin a phrase ... you shoot yourselves in the foot .... you may not believe it but I cannot see you have helped your cause one iota in this situation ... rather the reverse ... I presume (possibly) that is what you/your employers desired??

There is no 'cause' as such, my original point, and it remains, is that the ruling punishes airlines for being safe. I feel compelled to mention it repeatedly, in amongst the baying for blood money, some of which, as I have recognised, is justified.
What I will say again, is that a lot of it isn't, and I have to say that no-one seems to want to answer that point, along with a few other points that I'll leave those of you with the integrity to do so, to examine the thread for yourselves and come back to me on.

SpannerMonkey

WPC123 wrote: »

Pity you don't have the 'balls' to back up things ... nice sitting by a keyboard spouting off the rights and wrongs of claiming without having the guts to 'really' back up your claims so probably a bit of a worry you sign off the sheet when the next plane I go on has its annual service but in that case you may use your correct name/sign on ... who knows?

Yawn.
I have a mortgage and it's nothing to do with 'balls' as you put it, it is to do with the fact that my PERSONAL views cannot be associated with my employer. If you can't see that, then i can't help you.

You have no worry to fear my signature on your aircraft. To imply otherwise is tantamount to libel.

Tread with care.

wallbash

WPC123 wrote: »

Pity you don't have the 'balls' to back up things ... nice sitting by a keyboard spouting off the rights and wrongs of claiming without having the guts to 'really' back up your claims so probably a bit of a worry you sign off the sheet when the next plane I go on has its annual service but in that case you may use your correct name/sign on ... who knows?

A very unfair post.