Originally Posted by
JobsaGoodun
I don't disagree with any of that, but the key difference is that Stobart Air are not leasing aircraft to Flybe in order for Flybe to operate services ex SEN. Stobart Air are operating these services themselves, with their own fleet but using the brand of Flybe. A franchise is not a wet-lease so in my mind there is a subtle difference compared to TUI.
For the European Court of Justice, it is all about customer perspective. You look up all the details on the Flybe website, make your booking there, enter a contract with Flybe, get all the paperwork from Flybe etc. What from all of that could not create the impression that you raise a problem with Flybe, but with a company that is mentioned just once in the small print? Hence, Flybe is the port of call. It is up to Flybe to sort out the mess with Stobart Air. And I think this is justified. Nobody forces an airline to offer franchise contracts to other carriers and/or use third-party aircraft. And of course, Flybe will collect any compensation it has to pay out for Stobart flights from Stobart afterwards anyway.
To give two examples how difficult it could be for customers if it were differen, if you buy an Eurowings ticket, you can end up on an Eurowings, Germanwings, Eurowings Europe, LGW or TUIfly aircraft - why should it be up to the passenger to sort that mess out? Or if you buy an easyjet ticket for their new Berlin operation, it is a lottery which airline will actually operate the flight as easyjet has contracted aircraft from all corners of Europe to be able to start up at short notice.