The Other View on Compo Claims

SpannerMonkey

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

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.

By the way, given the thread so far, anyone care to support me on this one?

SpannerMonkey

wallbash wrote: »

A very unfair post.

Beat me to it!

111KAB

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

By the way, given the thread so far, anyone care to support me on this one?

No!


But here is my case > http://www.scribd.com/doc/173815478/Brittain-v-Monarch-Airlines-Ltd-04-06-13-Jud


Do you think I was justified in going to court on two occasions or not? This is the court analysis of my claim - the facts regarding the interim 26 hour delay (in airport) are omitted however I would (as an engineer) appreciate your comments.

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

No!


But here is my case > http://www.scribd.com/doc/173815478/Brittain-v-Monarch-Airlines-Ltd-04-06-13-Jud


Do you think I was justified in going to court on two occasions or not? This is the court analysis of my claim - the facts regarding the interim 26 hour delay (in airport) are omitted however I would (as an engineer) appreciate your comments.

Fine, I need no allies. I do however prefer people who display reasoning

I'll read that and come back to you. Bear in mind, as I have said repeatedly, that there are justified claims as well as the frivolous, 'I'm doing it because I can' claims.

Vauban

I'll support you, SpannerMonkey: or at least your right not to be personally abused or have your own integrity questioned (though in fairness no one can libel you, I think, because only you know who you are. But I digress ...)

You express yourself with great articulation, if I may say so. But you are simply wrong when you say "the ruling punishes airlines for being safe". It punishes airlines for being late - when it is their responsibility.

I accept what you say that things will go wrong with aircraft, even when they're well maintained. This is presumably true for any piece of complex machinery. Under the Regulations, airlines need to have provision either to fix these problems speedily or get passengers onto another airplane. If they can't do this then they must compensate the passenger for the loss of their time.

I don't think this is unfair - though of course I accept it will raise prices a bit (but all the evidence suggests not a huge amount). My view is partly informed by my own experience, where my plane in Sharm was delayed for 24 hours in Gatwick. Though Monarch said they acted speedily as soon as the windscreen crack was discovered, in fact the Event Print Out document (which the Judge made them disclose on my request) showed that they took four hours to bring the spare part down from Luton and then didn't start work to repair it until 12 hours after the incident. This is shameful - and I doubt (unless you correct me) that Monarch are some industry pariah: these practices were common across the airlines, where passenger convenience was deprioritised in favour of cost. That is why the Regulation was brought in.

Can I just pick you up on your point about the engineer not being expected to know the details of an incident. I'm afraid if he provides a witness statement to the Court purporting to offer an authoritative account (but littered with errors) of why the part failed, then it's not unreasonable to expect him to know the age, condition and service life of the affected part, particularly if he was being asked to take the stand. When I have to provide evidence to a court in a professional capacity, I make damn sure I understand the issues at hand and the detail of the matters under investigation.

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

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.

I don't really see why we're into different territory. Airlines have been paying out tech-related delay compensation for years. In any case, the flipside of the argument is that there will be an incentive to go above and beyond with respect to maintenance to avoid tech-related delays.

Dr_Watson

Blimey,
Have a few days away from the forum and look what happens!
SM, cracking argument, and well done some might say for having a go on here.
Sympathy, understanding, reasoning....maybe, maybe not.
Plenty has been said, and argued well IMO.

Love your comparison to being held up on traffic on the motorway, and waiting for that first claim to be ' held up in the courts'.
It won't happen.
Why you might ask, simple.
The majority of delays on our motorways are caused by one thing - accidents.
And these accidents are nearly always something caused by the user and not the provider of the service.
Yes most accidents (in fact nearly all) are caused by poor decisions from the road user and not the provider of the road service.
It is not the responsibility of the service provider, (for motorways the Highways Agency) to ensure that all users drive carefully and responsibly- that is down to them.
It is the service providers responsibility to provide roads that are safe and reliable, and there are plenty of hoops to jump through believe me,that make certain that this is the case, even when maintenance and improvement works take place.

Compare this to the airline industry, no comparison, the user can only turn up (hopefully on time) pass through security and the rest is completely out of their hands. In the hands of the airline that they have done their checks, maintenance etc ... And if they haven't...and even if they allegedly have...nothing the user can do about it again.

And one last comment about 261/2004, the 'Irish boys' charge a levy on all passengers to cover their 261/2004 liabilities should they not provide the service as paid for by its passengers.
1. Do they pay out routinely when they have failed- No
2. Do they return this fee when they have succeeded- No
3. Do they fight all passengers who try to claim their rightful dues under 261/2004- Yes
Do you wonder why 261/2004 is so emotive....
I'm proud of my signature and until RA redress points 1- 3 above I'll still be here

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

I don't really see why we're into different territory. Airlines have been paying out tech-related delay compensation for years. In any case, the flipside of the argument is that there will be an incentive to go above and beyond with respect to maintenance to avoid tech-related delays.

Perhaps not, and from a personal point of view I wouldn't compromise myself to save the company from a compo payout.
But the issue is that once compo is automatic, as in the airline can't refuse to pay it, what else may come into play in the decision making process?

SpannerMonkey

Dr_Watson wrote: »

Blimey,
Have a few days away from the forum and look what happens!
SM, cracking argument, and well done some might say for having a go on here.
Sympathy, understanding, reasoning....maybe, maybe not.
Plenty has been said, and argued well IMO.

Love your comparison to being held up on traffic on the motorway, and waiting for that first claim to be ' held up in the courts'.
It won't happen.
Why you might ask, simple.
The majority of delays on our motorways are caused by one thing - accidents.
And these accidents are nearly always something caused by the user and not the provider of the service.
Yes most accidents (in fact nearly all) are caused by poor decisions from the road user and not the provider of the road service.
It is not the responsibility of the service provider, (for motorways the Highways Agency) to ensure that all users drive carefully and responsibly- that is down to them.
It is the service providers responsibility to provide roads that are safe and reliable, and there are plenty of hoops to jump through believe me,that make certain that this is the case, even when maintenance and improvement works take place.

Compare this to the airline industry, no comparison, the user can only turn up (hopefully on time) pass through security and the rest is completely out of their hands. In the hands of the airline that they have done their checks, maintenance etc ... And if they haven't...and even if they allegedly have...nothing the user can do about it again.

And one last comment about 261/2004, the 'Irish boys' charge a levy on all passengers to cover their 261/2004 liabilities should they not provide the service as paid for by its passengers.
1. Do they pay out routinely when they have failed- No
2. Do they return this fee when they have succeeded- No
3. Do they fight all passengers who try to claim their rightful dues under 261/2004- Yes
Do you wonder why 261/2004 is so emotive....
I'm proud of my signature and until RA redress points 1- 3 above I'll still be here

Glad you approve of the goings-on! We are all here, I hope, to widen our understanding of the issues at hand.
I have to say that my analogy of the traffic jam is a bit more apt than you think.
You say the agency doesn't cause the accident, well I contend that the airline doesn't cause the defect.
I think the findings at court actually back me up on that - it appears that the law has been interpreted to mean that whilst the airlines can't predict a failure, a defect cannot be ruled as an extra-ordinary circumstance. There's some relatively uninformed opinion on here that poor maintenance leads to defects, and that, on the whole, is BS. All airlines maintain their aircraft, but at some point any one of a thousand parts may fail. Some would call it an accidental failure - after all, it wasn't 'intended' to happen (granted 'random' is a better word than accidental.)
So the service provider is compromised by the equipment failing accidentally; beyond their control.
The Highways Agency get to sit there, chewing sweets and watching your car overheat, whilst the airline, usually due to the desire to keep you safe as a result of the 'accident', get to enjoy your day in court with you, and probably at a loss.

Note to all: relax at this point before giving me a barrage; soon they won't be making you go to court for your free money, they'll pay and put it on EVERYONE'S ticket cost.

Brings me on to your 3 points
1. At the mo, never gonna happen until they have to, as they know they'll have every ambulance chaser in the land crawling all over them when they do. (Part of what inspires me is how you lot seem to love the bloodsuckers who are assisting you, when they are the same bloodsuckers who are responsible for your car insurance being as mental as it is.)
2. Really! You think that'll happen? Once they've got your wonga (due to your own actions) they aren't going to give it up. Morally reprehensible?? Absolutely, but then apparently morals aren't the question here, the law is.
3. See 1, plus from a personal viewpoint, I would find it hard to give you money back when I'm meeting my responsibility to keep you safe when all you have is thrust and lift protecting you from drag and weight.

Do I think my 1-3 answers are right. Well, not necessarily actually. But pass a poorly thought-out law and get to deal with the fallout. Could/should have been MUCH better for all concerned, and don't forget that aircraft are not the only way you get from A to B. It all strikes me as a little bit selective.

SpannerMonkey

Vauban wrote: »

I'll support you, SpannerMonkey: or at least your right not to be personally abused or have your own integrity questioned (though in fairness no one can libel you, I think, because only you know who you are. But I digress ...)

You express yourself with great articulation, if I may say so. But you are simply wrong when you say "the ruling punishes airlines for being safe". It punishes airlines for being late - when it is their responsibility.

I accept what you say that things will go wrong with aircraft, even when they're well maintained. This is presumably true for any piece of complex machinery. Under the Regulations, airlines need to have provision either to fix these problems speedily or get passengers onto another airplane. If they can't do this then they must compensate the passenger for the loss of their time.

I don't think this is unfair - though of course I accept it will raise prices a bit (but all the evidence suggests not a huge amount). My view is partly informed by my own experience, where my plane in Sharm was delayed for 24 hours in Gatwick. Though Monarch said they acted speedily as soon as the windscreen crack was discovered, in fact the Event Print Out document (which the Judge made them disclose on my request) showed that they took four hours to bring the spare part down from Luton and then didn't start work to repair it until 12 hours after the incident. This is shameful - and I doubt (unless you correct me) that Monarch are some industry pariah: these practices were common across the airlines, where passenger convenience was deprioritised in favour of cost. That is why the Regulation was brought in.

Can I just pick you up on your point about the engineer not being expected to know the details of an incident. I'm afraid if he provides a witness statement to the Court purporting to offer an authoritative account (but littered with errors) of why the part failed, then it's not unreasonable to expect him to know the age, condition and service life of the affected part, particularly if he was being asked to take the stand. When I have to provide evidence to a court in a professional capacity, I make damn sure I understand the issues at hand and the detail of the matters under investigation.

Thank you Vauban, for both recognising the point I was making, I think everything I have mentioned in the thread so far is to the contrary of what WPC123 was inferring, and for your comment on my ability to express my views.
Regarding the libel point; to be fair I did say 'tantamount to', but I would also contend that I am not unknown - SpannerMonkey is a handle to a valid email and actual identity. Granted WPC123 may not know it, but the comments were aimed specifically at me. If it came to it, it would be one for "m'learned friends" to hash out, though I doubt I'd get Bott & Co to rep me on a no win-no fee basis! Whatever, though, really, because it's moot if we can all continue to address each other with respect. I acknowledge that, on the whole, I have been treated with fairness and respect on here, particularly as I am going against the supportive shoulder that I interpret this particular forum to represent.

I think the airlines have behaved badly in the past, which is why I contend that there are good aspects to EU261 - it's making them up their game, and not before time. But I reiterate that the maintenance delay itself is not appropriate for a financial claim, because it is done to ensure the public's safety.
I think the law was written without due regard to that, it would have been better if aimed at how you were looked after when ANY delay occurred, irrespective of the cause.
There are instances where individuals should be compensated for lost time, but not every single one, unless of course there is an intent to make it applicable to EVERY occasion that one's time is wasted, right down to the supermarket queue when there aren't enough tills manned. Ridiculous? Vaguely. But what about trains & buses, they are transport too, and when they have a maintenance failure the worst you'll experience is rolling to an untimely halt. You will read in my response to DrWatson that the traffic jam is a valid argument too.
Delays, aviation or otherwise, are a part of life. What counts is a) can the airline be shown to be wholly responsible every time, and b) did they show a duty of care for your well-being as a result of the delay. I have contended that no matter how good your maintenance program, a curve ball can catch you out, but still require you to put safety first and take the delay.
Where the law could have, had it been thought out properly, been applied with precision, is in the aftercare department. Airlines (though not just them) have been rubbish at that in the past.

To answer your specific points regarding your delay. I can't state it for a fact without seeing all the timings etc. But 4 hours for a replacement part, LTN to LGW, is fairly reasonable, the engineer would need to identify & order the correct part number, it would be sourced from the stores dept and despatched, probably in an ad-hoc transport or with whoever was performing the repair. Again, I don't know, but I would guess the repair team would be ad-hoc too (believe it or not, there's a general shortage of engineers in the industry.) I can't comment about the 12 hour gap, I would guess they didn't know it would bite them in the a** like it did! Like I say, EU261 IS doing some good things.
I mentioned previously that there is a book of alleviations for flying with defects. Ironically enough, a cracked windscreen, under certain circumstances can be one of them. Bearing in mind my banging-on about safety, would you have been happy in that aircraft under those circumstances, albeit home on time (probably!) Even if you were, I doubt the aircrew would have been...
Windscreens are usually an 'on-defect' part. I have to say most DO last for ages and some don't - manufacturing defects I guess. I suspect your issue was down to the temp sensor in the windscreen failing and it over-heating to destruction. It would be unusual not to know how long it had been in service.
My point about engineers in court was meant in a fish-out-of-water way. I would imagine it's the last place a guy from the tech services dept would want to be, no doubt the company required it.
I can't speak for this incident, but I do know that in the past the focus has been on getting the fault sorted and the aircraft back in the air, rather then noting down the minutae of what happened & when. I can tell you that is changing though.
I think these court cases are something new for the airlines generally, so in the early days they would have been all over the place. I suspect (your) money is being spent to put that right though.

Finally, as safety is the gong I choose to bang, I draw your attention to this for the effects of saving money by not doing maintenance properly. One of the chilling aspects is the ATC recording of an observing aircraft aircrew stating the subject aircraft was in an inverted dive...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

And this one, with specific reference to Mr Huzar's situation. It's not completely beyond the bounds of possibility that, given the described fault, the boys from 'it's grim oop north' saved him (& the others) from a fate worse than an extra night in Malaga...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

So before anyone kicks off about the 'horrendousness' of delays, let's all just take a step back and consider why that airline chose to repair that particular aircraft before it flew again...