Oh dear Sean Dillon. Seems you are now so bitter and twisted about your employer that you are finding it difficult to type legible sentances. Time to let it go dear chap.

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, Jet2's trenchant attitude to EU261 claims runs the risk of it being classed in the Ryanair category of customer service. And with even Ryanair trying to improve its image, that's not a good place to be.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Jet2
 

Big, do try not to be patronising. The gist of Sean's remarks are clear.

Seriously, what type of volatile society do we live in today - a one that wherever there's a blame, there's a claim!

What more do people want? So you're delayed - it happens. The airline forks out the cost for everyone to eat, communicate, and sleep. People receive this, and then try to put a claim in!!??? :ugh:

It's simply ridiculous, especially given that the more people who put in a claim, the more money the airline has to pay out. The knock-on effect is that fares become higher, and with this, people complain about having to pay more for their ticket!!! :ugh: (Either that, or crew wages start to shrink - Yikes, bad news Sean Dillon, if you don't like where you work, why are you still there??? - Think it's time to take Big Tudor's advice [#2298])

And with all of this, they are complaining about time limits to put in a claim. 2 years is a more than adequate time period in which to claim for a delayed flight. The reality is, the vast majority of people will have forgotten about it a few weeks later (of course until they are told they cold claim £££)!!!

Ivan aromer - The gist of Mr Dillons comments is crystal clear, indeed this is one of the tamer offerings. However I do find the desire to be so damning about ones employer on a public website curious to say the least. Sean has delighted in telling us of the many pilots who have left Jet2 in recent months, yet seems happy to wave them farewell whilst continuing to take the company shilling. You'll have to forgive me if I find these double standards a trifle hypocritical, and take a rather dubious view of this individuals comments.

I think if there is anything amiss here, it's the CAA's morally reprehensible actions in launching this press release on a Saturday. Clearly designed to be picked up by all of the Sunday papers and to minimise the opportunity for the airlines getting a Haynes Handbagging to be able to respond in any meaningful way. Disgraceful way for a regulator to behave, but not unsurprising given the leadership style prevailing.

The need for a big 'like' button on pprune.... I think you have hit the nail, bang in the centre of the head Big Tudor.

Let's hope for Sean's sake that none of his bosses have any knowledge of this public website. But then of course if they did, and handed him his P45, he'd probably be happy to leave, right? So then why does he not leave on his own account??? :confused:

A like button would be of great use for Flightrider's comment:

You're right, it is an absolute degradation of a national regulator. Do the CAA just want to see LCC's out of business? (Let that be the Mirror, and their ridiculous reports)

You having a laugh? CAA picking on the poor rule-breaking LCC??

I'm sure the CAA just want LCC's to follow the rules and not to pick and chose which one's they like.

That's not the way the world works and a bit rich to cry foul when you get caught out.

Yes, that's right SWBKCB. Although many of us might agree that the rules are harsh, Jet2 have exhausted all of the legal appeal processes and they now have to comply with the law. That includes a six-year limit on claims.

You can't blame CAA for seeking to ensure that all airlines now comply with the law.

Jet2 mustn't get a reputation for being recalcitrant - once you get such a reputation it's really difficult to shake it off, as Ryanair know only too well.

I suppose if you choose to operate ancient aircraft then you must be prepared for the downside which is the numerious delays that afflict jet 2 ..you cannot have it all ways

Exactly Basil.

These laws were made to be complied with by all airlines and Jet2 should by now have realised that includes them.

Irrespective of the personal views of people on this thread, the CAA are acting correctly in ensuring compliance.

Jet2_738 talks out of his bottom again
 

Jet2_738 the CAA are not targeting low cost airlines or Jet2 their compliance action also targeted Aer-Lingus who are a scheduled carrier.

The enforcement action against Jet2 is because Jet2 have NOT complied with the rules, simples......whether you or Jet2 agree with the law is not relevant.

Jet2 go to considerable lengths to ensure they can recover from delays including aircraft and crews on standby in Spain and that is commendable.

They have the added problem that as an IT operator the responsibilities and costs when things go wrong is far higher than a pure LoCo operator that is not ATOL

They are operate at the bottom end of the market (buckets & spades) and that social group are far more likely to jump on the 'claims' band wagon, something for nothing to compensate that their £280 all in weeks holiday was wrecked by a delay of 3 hours.

Spotitiludrop is also correct, if you choose to operate aircraft that are anywhere between 3 -6 times older than your peer group average you are going to get more tech problems and delays, its the other side of the savings coin on new aircraft.

Jet2 will/have attracted a lot more claims by the publicity surrounding their refusal to pay up.

If you read Flightrider's comment in full, you'll realise that the idea is of them publishing such information on a Saturday, or in other words, gold dust for the Sunday papers, who have nothing else to complain about. Jet2 are not BA, and will never be. Their business will take more of a hit (over the weekend) than that of a national carrier (like Aer Lingus) will. That is where the LCC comment came from.

Jet2 are gradually renewing their fleet - Seriously, haven't we heard the argument about aircraft age the world over? Jet2, as I'm sure you will know, keep their aircraft in tip-top shape whether they're 13 or going on 30. Just because FR have a fleet of newer aircraft, does not make them much less immune to tech problems. The older aircraft 733's are all owned outright, quite the flip side of FR ops, where few are actually owned by them. The 733's are starting to be phased out, and replacing them, are the 738's (the same type of aircraft that FR operate). Jet2 are a relatively young airline. Just remember how EZY started out - with old, second-hand aircraft, and then struck a deal with Airbus, and well, you know the story. LS are almost half the age of EZY - give them a chance. As for: I mean - Really??:ugh:

Come on Jet2_738 Jet2 are not a young airline, just how long have Channex been around?

Whether they keep them in top condition or not does not eliminate 'aged' problems its as simple as that. J2 engineers do a great job, but drive a long any motorway for a year and yes you'll see the odd S class or Range rover stranded on the hard shoulder but overwhelmingly it is older vehicles, my point is simply this that Jet2/Channex historically have made a business decision to buy aged aircraft because they are less expensive to acquire and it suits their very seasonal business plan. I have no problem with that at all, but you have to expect and plan for higher maintenance costs, again J2 do that, what has changed is consumer legislation has ruled that airline can no longer use unexpected technical problems to doge paying compensation and that applies equally to new aircraft.

To my knowledge J2 does not publish delay information or its despatch rate.

I know everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, but seriously does anyone believe that the CAA publishes on a Saturday just to get at Jet 2 in particular?

I am sorry but that really is carrying things too far.

There really is some rubbish written on here. Its a shame as some good hard facts also emerge.

I will declare my hand first.
i am a shareholder and have owned up to 2% of the group in the past.
PM has a 40% stake in this business and whilst clearly not perfect it must be said that his team have done a great job in building this company.
We have had growth of 100% a year for 4 years in the holiday division.
Shareholders have seen big gains in the price of their stock.

It is not right that employees should have a pop at the company from behind a plastic name on here.
Sean if you have done 35 years you are early/mid 50`s so Man up and go have it out.
You are paid about 100k a year for a 400 hr contract ( if you are full time) and nearly always get back to base.
Older aircraft do not mean more breakdowns. Having no backup creates the issue.
I left MAN on a MON flight due out 6.30 am at 10.30 pm a few years ago after it was decided to bump morning and pm flight on the 330.
So it happens...........even BA on new aircraft.
JET 2 do there best..........a few years ago out of Leeds a JET2 plane had gone tech in spain within 3 hours we were on a hired in 757 that had to return to Leeds after a possible fire on t/o.
result an overnight delay.it happens.
Flew last week to GV and back to LBA 757 out and an old 737 back.
both on time ( early actually) and great service.
Flight back had 2 captains and a fo in cockpit out and in ( any idea why guys).
New planes have a huge depreciation charge that you cannot cover by flying 2 sectors a day. they need to work.
The business model has always been ,good quality planes that are lower to fly than new.

and if they followed the rules, there wouldn't be anything to publish.

I feel that the compensation rules are too generous at this end of the market. Maybe capping it within the EU rules at a maximum of twice the fare paid, including taxes etc, would be more reasonable? I wonder if those who created the EU rules really considered the LCC end of the market properly.

The point I was making was that the CAA press release was so clearly timed to be a name and shame exercise that it's unacceptable. You have an organisation which is renowned for its Monday to Friday 0900 to 1700 culture and the only time it has ever put out press releases on weekends is in response to a major accident or tour operator failure. By publishing a pro-active release on a Saturday to be picked up by the Sunday press, it minimises the airline's ability to respond if it has something meaningful to say by way of counter-comment.

If it has an ongoing issue with Jet2 or other operators, this is not a professional and balanced way to go about it. It is superficial, subjective regulation that is sadly in keeping with the values of its CEO.

Anothertyke is probably right to question whether the EC considered LCCs when setting the rules. But that isn't the point, which is that the rules are now clear (at least in relation to technical delays) and airlines have no option but to comply. The compensation levels are set by the directive, and cannot be varied by the CAA or any other national body. By all means lobby for a change, but in the meantime comply with the rules as they stand.

As has been pointed out by others, Jet2's notoriety in relation to EU261 claims will only encourage people to claim. It has only itself to blame for being seen as tricksy. And it will take a long time for its reputation to recover.

The CAA's full report will be published tomorrow, showing how a wider group of airlines (not just the bad boys) are complying with EU261.