Two year time-bar

stevemej

tracylou wrote: »

Thanks JP, I love cookies.

Although in my mid-sixties, I can usually manage to figure out this new use of the English language, but there's one that's been bugging me for some time now.

OP is used a lot on here and I can't work it out. It couldn't be as simple as "other poster" could it?

original poster

howticklediam

stevemej wrote: »

11. Further or alternatively, on the true construction of the Conditions and/or by an implied term (implied therein in order to give business efficacy thereto and/or as reflecting the common intentions of the parties and/or because it went without saying and/or as a matter of law) the Claimants agreed that they would not bring legal proceedings against the Defendant more than two years after the scheduled date of arrival and/or the actual date of arrival at their destination.

The fact that the solicitors need to explain the terms: "on the true construction of the Conditions and/or by an implied term" mean that the terms are not in fact unambiguaous but CLEARLY ambiguaous at best.

The game is up for them in my opinion.

I like your argument here, I'll check my defence for the same wording.

fermi

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/Limitation.pdf

Is that relevant. Apologies if not.

JPears

A retort/alternative pleading for the LiP in these cases is that Jet2,along with the majority of the airlines, repeatedly fail to inform the passenger of their rights under reg 261/2004 with respect to compensation.
If you don't know about the regulation, or you are deliberatly delayed in your claim/action by the airline or for the veterans of the forum, delayed by such things as Sturgeon, how can you make a claim.
I think this is a strong counterargument for those in the 2 year battle.

JPears

The claimant who was on the R4 slot sounds as though he was on the same flight as me LS451/2, but a week later, when the same "reliable workhorse 737" (Jet2's quote in court) didn't even make it as far as Chambery, having to end its journey at Geneva, with a fault. No surprise Jet2 didn't renew the lease on this aircraft.......

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

The claimant who was on the R4 slot sounds as though he was on the same flight as me LS451/2, but a week later, when the same "reliable workhorse 737" (Jet2's quote in court) didn't even make it as far as Chambery, having to end its journey at Geneva, with a fault. No surprise Jet2 didn't renew the lease on this aircraft.......

True, I wonder who that eloquent young man from Leeds was?

Was it delayed the week before too?

JPears

Ah ha!
My flight was the week before, delayed 5 hours. In both cases it was a knock as the previous flight out was delayed by a technical issue.
Was yours a circuit breaker fault on autopilot system?
I have a photo of the plane broken in Geneva somewhere....

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

Ah ha!
My flight was the week before, delayed 5 hours. In both cases it was a knock as the previous flight out was delayed by a technical issue.
Was yours a circuit breaker fault on autopilot system?
I have a photo of the plane broken in Geneva somewhere....

No. Dual transponder failure. There was a known manufacturing defect.

The flight out from the UK was diverted to Geneva, we were bused there to get the flight.

Does it count as a knock on if the problem was on the previous flight but the same plane?

261 says "a particular aircraft on a particular day" so I see that as not a knock on if it happened on the same plane on the previous flight.

JPears

Irrelevant now as it was a technical failure.
The paragraph in 261/2004 you are probably refering to is ONLY when the delay is ATC. Therefore the argument would be that all other delays/cancellations and denied boardings that are not EC, apply as a knock on.
Have you confirmded that the dual transponder was a known manufacturing defect?

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

Irrelevant now as it was a technical failure.
The paragraph in 261/2004 you are probably refering to is ONLY when the delay is ATC. Therefore the argument would be that all other delays/cancellations and denied boardings that are not EC, apply as a knock on.
Have you confirmded that the dual transponder was a known manufacturing defect?

Yes, there is an EASA Safety Information Bulletin from 3 months before the flight describing the fault and the symptoms and recommended action to swap out the faulty panel. Also there's a service bulletin from the manufacturer sent to all operators regarding the same fault that obviously later became a SIB, then shortly after an Airworthiness Directive.