Jetairfly boeing 767 delayed today

[sean1982]

What are you going to do if your car breaks down the next time? Inform VTM and HLN because you PAID for it and it is not supposed to break down?? What do you suggest? For JAF to put them on a pink cloud and let the wind blow them to their destination ?

[Novastar]

oh my god .. if you're going to make a comparison , at least put one up that makes sense.
Like a car breaking down is the same than this issue...

[sean1982]

Why not? Both are caused by technical problem.

Different vehicle, same reason.

[teddybAIR]

Novastar,

I am afraid that you forget to realize that Jetairfly already does everything within its power to prevent TUC from going technical. For your information: if Jetairfly could prevent the costs related to such delays and the bad press associated with it, as well as pleasing their customers...don't you think they would seize the opportunity? My point is that they are managing the situation to the best of their abilities. Moreover, I think they are well aware that the people on board are PAYING pax!

You apparantly fail to understand that the airline industry is an extremely competitive industry in which it is hard for small companies like JetairFly to develop a sustainable business model. Indeed, they should strive at minimizing delays...I am convinced they do. Proof: apparently they are thinking about replacing TUC, aren't they? Now, if you suggest they replace a multi billion dollar plane (even if it is merely under a leasing contract) by tomorrow...dream on!

[stefanel]

Hello,

as much as I find this discussion interesting, I am really desperate to get what I am entitled to.
I know you guys are experts or almost. Please if anyone can read my previous post and help me get refunded, I would be so grateful. I am really just requesting the law to be applied. You can imagine my frustration after over a year! Thanks

[sean1982]

Frankly, I don't think you have the right for a refund. Force Majeure can be applied when a technical problem is the reason if the airline can prove they did everything in their power to prevent it from happening and if they kept the delay to a minimum, in other words, given the circumstances kept it as short possible

Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

[SN1203]

b720,

So your most constructive proposal is: get a 2nd or a 3rd plane?! And I am sure that you have extensive management experience in running a charter airline and are fully aware of the implications of "getting" a 2nd or 3rd aircraft?!

Thanks teddybAIR, finally something that makes sense between all the other comments of all the armchair CEOs we seem to have.

Dispatching a B767 (or any other aircraft in fact) on a 12hrs flight is costing a lot of money. An additional aircraft on longhaul holiday destinations would probably lead to an increased frequency to some of the existing destinations, as there aren't loads of longhaul destinations available that can be turned into a profit. A capacity increase of 100% doesn't necessarily mean a passenger increase of 100%, which could possibly lead to lower yield and emptier planes.

Do not forgot that you have quite a lot of off-peak moments when it comes down to holiday destinations. This is also the reason why airlines like JAF and FQ have to outsource a lot of flights during the Summer. It is obviously cheaper to outsource part of the work during the Summer, instead of operate all flights by own metal in the busy Summer period, resulting in lot's of parked aircraft during the Winter.

To me it makes perfectly sense that JAF has one aircraft during the Winter to operate all longhaul flights. I invite the armchair CEOs to convince me how profitable a second aircraft would be if you don't really have more demand in the market to operate additional services.

You don't have to operate a second aircraft as a back-up, what you have to do is increase the dispatch reliability of the existing fleet. To be honest, without having any figures to back up my statement, I'm pretty convinced that OO-TUC doesn't have a bad dispatch reliability. I don't see more technical delays on OO-TUC than on any other aircraft.

All aircraft go tech from time to time... the issue for JAF is that every delay is pretty visible because they don't have spare aircraft around. If a JAF B737 goes tech, you either won't notice it if they have a spare aircraft available, or they'll switch aircraft around which might lead to several small(er) delays on several flights.

Last but not least, it is not because you have a long delay that the aircraft is tech. Sometimes it is delayed because the aircraft is released late from maintenance, or because external factors resulted in the aircraft becoming unavailable (bird strikes etc.). Lot's of the delays on Brussels Airlines' A330 services are actually directly or indirectly the result of bird strikes.

Some people would better invest the time they put in informing VTM or HLN about Jetairfly's delays in trying to get a better understanding of the aviation business...

[Novastar]

lol you should hear yourself... people can't complain or they are being called ignorants or "armchair ceo's"
Maybe we should all drop on our knees and worship the airlines because they are so kind to allow us on their planes ?
you sir are being arrogant

do you really think people care about how to run an airline and all the details behind it ?
all they care about is getting safely at their destination, for a reasonable price and without a 12 hour delay.

anyway case closed for me... obviously I'm too ignorant to be even discussing this.

[Apuneger]

Hi,

As far as I know, the priorities of any airline, including JAF, should be: safety, passenger comfort and punctuality.

The delay of Monday's flight was hence related to either a safety issue or a passenger comfort issue. It lead to an aircraft that could not be dispatched unless the issue was taken care of.

I am the first one to admit that a 10h delay is no fun at all, especially with young children. Passengers have the right to let a dispatch-reliable aircraft take them to their well-deserved holiday break ontime. However, if I was a passenger on that flight, I would have been more than happy to stay on the ground if there was a 'serious' problem. I would not want to fly on an aircraft that is either unsafe to fly or where basic passenger comfort cannot be guaranteed.

Unless you're a technician or engineer, it is very, very hard to understand for most people how complex the structure of a modern jetliner is, and what can go wrong. I do not qualify as a technician nor engineer, so even I do not have a clear view on what can go wrong. But one thing is for sure, an aircraft cannot be flown like a car can be driven. Most people drive their car everyday and only refuel, that's it. For most of the time, nothing has to be looked at, nothing goes wrong and the car drives, simple as that.

It's just too easy to 'demand' that the aircraft is taken out of the fleet if no other aircraft is standby to take over the flights. Likewise, it also too easy to 'just' get a 2nd or 3rd long-haul aircraft and keep these aircraft standby or let them fly medium haul destinations with a 50% load factor. And it's even easier to send a text message to a tabloid. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

Everybody at JAF is doing everything they can to make sure that safety is guaranteed, passenger comfort is no issue and that each and every flight leaves on time.

Just my 2 cents.

Best regards,
Ivan

[taz001]

I heard from a ticket desk employee of Jetair that this particular problem with OO-TUC was due to.... a diaper! Some passenger had flushed the diaper through one of the toilets of the aircraft. This blocked the whole sanitary circuit in the aircraft with all toilets inop. No need to explain that a plane cannot fly without working toilets, certainly not on a long-haul flight.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[Conti764]

lol you should hear yourself... people can't complain or they are being called ignorants or "armchair ceo's"
Maybe we should all drop on our knees and worship the airlines because they are so kind to allow us on their planes ?
you sir are being arrogant

do you really think people care about how to run an airline and all the details behind it ?
all they care about is getting safely at their destination, for a reasonable price and without a 12 hour delay.

anyway case closed for me... obviously I'm too ignorant to be even discussing this.

It's simple, based on passenger statistics and demand JAF knows better than any of us how many equipment they need for what destinations. If they know they need one long haul airplane for their operations, they use one airplane. They signed a leasing contract for TUC years ago, it's a troubled plane, we all know that by now, but back then? The only thing you might blame on JAF is that they maybe didn't check this airplanes history well enough or didn't do a thorough enough check before they leased it, but then again, none of us knows on which terms or conditions the contract was signed and what JAF did or didn't do to check this plane.

Now, I am absolutely convinced that JAF is bothered with this new incident as well and they will be all to glad to receive a more reliable plane in the near future. Why more reliable? It's far more new and I think, with all the incidents JAF had on TUC they will double, triple and quadruple check the status of OO-JAP. OO-TUC brought a lot of trouble and bad publicity with it, so they'll be all to happy to see it go.

Regarding your complaints, I can understand it's a very bad experience for somebody to have such long delays. But JAF won't just achieve a second long haul plane because OO-TUC is such a trouble plane. They rely on the broad Tui network to bring in a replacement like they did sometimes with Arkefly equipment, but these planes aren't always available. Does this mean JAF is bad company or people shouldn't fly with it anymore? Definitely not. They do everything they can to keep their fleet up and running and are in the process of replacing their aged equipment with brand new or far younger equipment. So for the time being, both JAF and the passengers will have to sit it through, brighter days are ahead.

[LX-LGX]

Frankly, I don't think you have the right for a refund. Force Majeure can be applied when a technical problem is the reason if the airline can prove they did everything in their power to prevent it from happening and if they kept the delay to a minimum, in other words, given the circumstances kept it as short possible. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

No, it’s not. Let me try to clear it out:

Force Majeure / overmacht / hand of God indeed excludes airlines from most of their obligations, but it’s not a wildcard they can use at every occasion to avoid refunds, indemnity or compensation. The law involved for technical failures is EU-Regulation 261/2004:

Remark (14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

There is a difference between a flight safety shortcoming and a technical failure. If the pushback truck breaks the front landing gear in two pieces at the gate, it’s not a flight safety shortcoming: it’s technical failure, and the plane simply is unable to fly. If an engine doesn’t start at the gate, it’s not a safety issue: it’s a technical failure. If an engine stalls in mid air, it is a safety issue however.

(14) doesn't say "excluded": it says “limited or excluded". There are enough legal cases to clear out the important difference between limited and excluded:
- obligations are excluded if fog closes an airport (ex. no hotel costs, no meals);
- obligations are excluded in case of a strike by airport officials (ex. fire brigade);
- obligations are limited in case of a wildcat strike by own staff;
- airline has to take up obligations in case of a strike, announced well in advance, by own staff;
- obligations are limited in case of a bird strike or a rabbit strike (ex. hotel costs yes, meals yes, financial compensation no);
- obligations are limited in case of a flight safety shortcoming, caused by technical failure, ex. midair engine problem;
- airline has obligations in case of a technical failure, not linked to safety. Example: yesterday’s delay, caused by an inop toilet.

I know this is the English part of the forum, but I hope the webmaster will allow some Dutch and French – just to make sure about limited/excluded:

(14) Evenals in het kader van het Verdrag van Montreal dienen de verplichtingen die worden opgelegd aan de luchtvaartmaatschappijen die de vluchten uitvoeren, te worden beperkt of uitgesloten in gevallen waarin een gebeurtenis het gevolg is van buitengewone omstandigheden die zelfs door het treffen van alle redelijke maatregelen niet voorkomen hadden kunnen worden. Dergelijke omstandigheden kunnen zich met name voordoen in gevallen van politieke onstabiliteit, weersomstandigheden die uitvoering van de vlucht in kwestie verhinderen, beveiligingsproblemen, onverwachte vliegveiligheidsproblemen en stakingen die gevolgen hebben voor de vluchtuitvoering van de luchtvaartmaatschappij die de vlucht uitvoert.

(14) Tout comme dans le cadre de la convention de Montréal, les obligations des transporteurs aériens effectifs devraient être limitées ou leur responsabilité exonérée dans les cas où un événement est dû à des circonstances extraordinaires qui n'auraient pas pu être évitées même si toutes les mesures raisonnables avaient été prises. De telles circonstances peuvent se produire, en particulier, en cas d'instabilité politique, de conditions météorologiques incompatibles avec la réalisation du vol concerné, de risques liés à la sécurité, de défaillances imprévues pouvant affecter la sécurité du vol, ainsi que de grèves ayant une incidence sur les opérations d'un transporteur aérien effectif.

well you are lucky because I had a 15 hour delay from Cancun to Brussels in November 2007 and I never got any money back although I know the European law regarding airline compensation, and I sent them all pieces of evidence (extra night at the hotel, one restaurant, taxi there and in Brussels due to arrival at 3 am, all in all about 100€ (for two persons, admit it is more than reasonable because my hotel in Cancun was the cheapest one 25€ while you have super luxurious ones and same for the food) and I never got a cent back ! They are just totally ignoring the law and I making things up : the only thing they explained in their letter was that the technical fault on this famous OO-TUC was a case of force majeure!!!
Can you imagine? I've worked for a carrier and I know what a case of majeure in transportation is ! Everything but a technical problem.
If anyone can help me solve this up, I'm just writing on and on and they will say no more : they are just sticking to their initial decision without wanting to explain anything.
I'm totally disgusted because I know my rights and their legal obligations but they just won't do anything, which is as unbelievable as unacceptable.

Now, regarding this particular OO-TUC : was the technical problem also a flight safety shortcoming – or just a technical? Furthermore, keeping in mind the history as PP-VOL with an airline with bad reputation (Varig), keeping in mind the emergency during the delivery flight, keeping in mind the many technical problems week after week during that period, one can say that the plane should have been taken out of business for a D-check. See (14), about all reasonable measures who should have been taken. They haven't.

Jetair will never pay indemnity because they should. They only pay indemnity when they are forced to.

1. Geschillencommissie Reizen / Commission Litiges de Voyages: a complaint to Jetair should have been done within one month after the return flight, by registered letter. If that wasn’t the case, forget it.

2. Court case, based upon the Belgian Code civile / Burgerlijk Wetboek (I think it's 1384): “if you causes damage, you have to pay for it”. Many lawyers charge only 50 euro for a first advice. As I’m not a lawyer, that’s all I say about this. Inform what they charge for a first visit.

3. private companies specializing in EU 261/2004 like http://www.euclaim.nl and http://indemnifly.blogspot.com/

And probably the easiest way:
4. Belgian enforcement body for EU 261/2004 violations:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger ... bodies.pdf

[euroflyer]

Why not? Both are caused by technical problem.

Different vehicle, same reason.

Sorry, but what would you have done with your car if it would have broken down as often as this plane seems to do I cannot imagine ANYBODY would have kept it and would happily be going to the garage week after week and waiting patiently for half a day before you can continue your journey. COME ON!

I have no experience whatsoever with JAF myself and I cannot judge on their service, but I know if I only read the posts in this forum and the other news report I certainly would NEVER book a long haul flight with my family with a company with such a history of service. Sorry, just my opinion, others might make different choices, but that is mine.

[sean1982]

I had that with my first car I ever bought. I didn't like it and bought a new one. I didn't go and tell HLN.be or VTM however.

BTW TUC gas been flying the last 4 months every day without any technical problem whatsoever, so I wouldn't call it week after week.

[sean1982]

LX-LGX,

Why is a technical problem on the ground not a safety short-coming ? I can't really see the difference. The problem with the rules is they can be interpreted in different ways. Needless to say the airlines have a different interpretation then the travelling public. The aircraft had a D-check in February of last year, so did JAF take all nessecary precautions then ?

In this case a passenger flushed a diaper which blocked the sanitary system, could the airline hold that passenger responsible for grounding the aircraft ? Can force majeure be applied ? It's not the airline who is responsible for pax trying to flush diapers down the toilet ?

[teddybAIR]

This discussion could go on for ages: there is always going to be someone who is going to complain about the value he gets for his money. The reality is that customers ultimately have the choice between different alternatives. Given the fact that Jetairfly succeeds in running a sustainable airline, customers seem to give them the advantage.

Moreover, a lot of the delays need to be put in their context: the example with the diapers is just one of many. It is only proof of humanity that the crew and company decided not to depart with the sanitary system down. I they would have gotten over 100 complaints should they have taken of on a transatlantic flight with the toilets unserviceable. Again, I wonder what your best proposal is to solve these types of delays? As far as I know, you haven't been able to come up with one single realistic proposition.

As for the right of the customer to complain: nobody here on the forum will tell you the pax cannot complain. Offcourse they can. And any airline should seize the opportunity when customers pinpoint major flaws in their service in order to upgrade their product. Yet, you should not forget the extremely competitive environment and economic reality airlines operate in. If you believe you are entitled to compensation because of a 15h delay, then I invite you to exploit all means at your disposal to obtain the compensation. Nevertheless, signaling every delay to tabloid press is not what I call a constructive attitude.

Crews are under tremendous pressure to respect the shedules they are supposed to fly. Believe me, they do everything in their power to respect the roster. Yet, any crew member worthy of captaincy and with a minimum amount of airmanship, will refuse to depart with an aircraft that does not fully guarantee the flight's safety. Ultimately it all comes down to a very simple prioritization:

1. Guarantee the flight's safety
2. Perform the flight as economically as possible
3. Maximise passenger comfort

Allow me to add to this, that the above three priorities do not exclude each other. You will find that it is impossible to organise an unsafe but comfortable flight.

To conclude: I can understand the complaints of passengers when confronted with long delays. They should get every compensation they are entitled to. Yet, safety always comes first and no airline will be able to survive in the long run should it consistently lack to respect the above prioritization.

Best regards,
bAIR

[airazurxtror]

I have no experience whatsoever with JAF myself and I cannot judge on their service, but I know if I only read the posts in this forum and the other news report I certainly would NEVER book a long haul flight with my family with a company with such a history of service. Sorry, just my opinion, others might make different choices, but that is mine.

Mine, too. Exactly.

[LX-LGX]

LX-LGX,

Why is a technical problem on the ground not a safety short-coming ? I can't really see the difference. The problem with the rules is they can be interpreted in different ways. Needless to say the airlines have a different interpretation then the travelling public. The aircraft had a D-check in February of last year, so did JAF take all nessecary precautions then ?

No, the rules cannot be interpreted in different ways. I agree that airlines have a different interpretation then the passengers, but EU-Regulation 261/2004 is a passenger protection law, and therefore has to be interpreted as such. If there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt is for the passenger.

Any technical problem is indeed mostly safety related, because most parts of the plane are safety related. But EU-261/2004 mentions a flight safety shortcoming. A technical problem on the ground isn' a flight safety shortcoming: it's a technical shortcoming to the plane. Flight safety shortcomings can only occur during a flight.

LX-LGX,
In this case a passenger flushed a diaper which blocked the sanitary system, could the airline hold that passenger responsible for grounding the aircraft ? Can force majeure be applied ? It's not the airline who is responsible for pax trying to flush diapers down the toilet ?

Yes, the airline is responsible if a passenger flushes diapers. Unless like smoking in the toilet, there is no law prohibiting it. Oeps, trust all airline staff, maintenance, crew members now disagree with me. However: a crew member could have warned this passenger with a baby not to flush diapers in the toilet. A crew member could have assisted the passenger, going to the toilet with a baby. The airline could have placed stickers with "no diapers" on the toilet cover, on the toilet door, ... If all this was done, "all reasonable measures have been taken.

Yes, the airline can hold the passenger responsible. If they find him, if he admits and if they can proof that the toilet wasn't blocked during a previous visit from another passenger.

Now, what where the consequences for passengers, regarding the 11 hours delay? Meals and drinks have been given at BRU. Half a day less holiday then, probably resulting in the standard compensation "25 euro discount on your next trip with us".

[JAFflyer]

LX-LGX,
In this case a passenger flushed a diaper which blocked the sanitary system, could the airline hold that passenger responsible for grounding the aircraft ? Can force majeure be applied ? It's not the airline who is responsible for pax trying to flush diapers down the toilet ?

Yes, the airline is responsible if a passenger flushes diapers. Unless like smoking in the toilet, there is no law prohibiting it. Oeps, trust all airline staff, maintenance, crew members now disagree with me. However: a crew member could have warned this passenger with a baby not to flush diapers in the toilet. A crew member could have assisted the passenger, going to the toilet with a baby. The airline could have placed stickers with "no diapers" on the toilet cover, on the toilet door, ... If all this was done, "all reasonable measures have been taken.

Yes, the airline can hold the passenger responsible. If they find him, if he admits and if they can proof that the toilet wasn't blocked during a previous visit from another passenger.

Now, what where the consequences for passengers, regarding the 11 hours delay? Meals and drinks have been given at BRU. Half a day less holiday then, probably resulting in the standard compensation "25 euro discount on your next trip with us".

What about all the placards in the toilets in several languages that you can't throw it in the toilet but in the garbage bin...
Pax get what they are legally entitled to.

[teddybAIR]

Yes, the airline is responsible if a passenger flushes diapers. Unless like smoking in the toilet, there is no law prohibiting it. Oeps, trust all airline staff, maintenance, crew members now disagree with me. However: a crew member could have warned this passenger with a baby not to flush diapers in the toilet. A crew member could have assisted the passenger, going to the toilet with a baby. The airline could have placed stickers with "no diapers" on the toilet cover, on the toilet door, ... If all this was done, "all reasonable measures have been taken.

Are you kiddin' me? Then I suppose any airline would be responsible for a hijacking on their airplanes since they haven't placed any stickers saying "this is a non-hijacking flight"...and off course the airline is responsible if the captain forgets the "no shooting" sign...

There is such a thing as common sense you know...moreover, their are clear signs indicating you shouldn't throw anything in the toilet, yet in the garbage bin!