Liability to pax ref Cork crash

[Bobster67]

Airline accused of denying crash liability - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

From my limited knowledge it would appear as if the lawyer is blustering but I would appreciate any more informed opinions.

[sunnybunny]

BBC news report

Manx2 are passing legal liability for compensation to Flightline

BBC News - Manx2 in legal dispute over Cork plane crash payout

Manx2 in legal dispute over Cork plane crash payout

Manx 2's solicitors said the airline was not responsible for such claims.
In a letter to Stewarts Law, Appleby Solicitors for Manx2 said the airline had acted as "ticket provider or booking office" and that according to the terms and conditions of Mr Dickens' ticket purchase the carrier was Flightline BCN and his contract was with them.

[lear60fellow]

One thing is the operator and other the carrier, Manx2 doesn´t want to pay pax but they are not just a travel agency, they wet leased the aircraft as they do to other companies, and they claim not to be responsible? of course they are.

[O'Neill No6]

Who are Flightline BCN?

Who are Flightline BCN? Anything to do with Flightline (ex of Southend, Essex)? I did notice the callsign of the accident aircraft was the "old" Flightline code "FLT".

Thanks.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by sunnybunny

Manx 2's solicitors said the airline was not responsible for such claims.
In a letter to Stewarts Law, Appleby Solicitors for Manx2 said the airline had acted as "ticket provider or booking office" and that according to the terms and conditions of Mr Dickens' ticket purchase the carrier was Flightline BCN and his contract was with them.

I think that few who travelled that day would appreciate this legal nuance, and it remains to be seen if the courts take a similar view.

This sort of "now we're an airline, now we're not" approach does the operator and the industry no credit.

One lesson which needs to be learned very promptly here from the experiences of the US majors and their various contracted commuter carriers, operating with their own AOC (as here), but operating at the behest and with a public image of the main organisation (as here) is that, while insurance, legal and aviation technicalities may indeed belong with the physical aircraft operator, the main company will front it all, pass the relevant items backwards and forwards to the right people, handle the press and the relatives appropriately, and such like - and most certainly not start sending forthright solicitors letters that end up in the media.

[boguing]

Lear 60 and WHBM.

One thing is the operator and other the carrier, Manx2 doesn´t want to pay pax but they are not just a travel agency, they wet leased the aircraft as they do to other companies, and they claim not to be responsible? of course they are.

In fairness it is a fundamental principle of being an insured party that one must act as if one is not insured.

So if M2 or FL said 'our fault' their insurers would be free to hang them out to dry. Each party will have had their lawyers toing and froing within minutes of the accident.

[AOB9]

In fairness it is a fundamental principle of being an insured party that one must act as if one is not insured.

Absolutely, this is simply the way insurance companies operate, even in tragic situations like this. I speak from experience. I wouldn't read too much into it, just expect a long protracted process.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by WHBM

I think that few who travelled that day would appreciate this legal nuance, and it remains to be seen if the courts take a similar view.

This sort of "now we're an airline, now we're not" approach does the operator and the industry no credit.

One lesson which needs to be learned very promptly here from the experiences of the US majors and their various contracted commuter carriers, operating with their own AOC (as here), but operating at the behest and with a public image of the main organisation (as here) is that, while insurance, legal and aviation technicalities may indeed belong with the physical aircraft operator, the main company will front it all, pass the relevant items backwards and forwards to the right people, handle the press and the relatives appropriately, and such like - and most certainly not start sending forthright solicitors letters that end up in the media.

Firstly, I am not a lawyer; and secondly, I recognise that people may wish to use this thread to debate the ins and outs of Cat II approaches rather than airline terms and conditions (perhaps this should then be moved to the Manx2 thread?), but I find myself puzzled by the Manx2 T&Cs:

General
Manx2 Ltd. is providing your tickets for this flight booking. We proudly claim to offer great service at competitive prices, and we are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve our service.On behalf of Manx2, Van Air Europe As will be the main operator for flights from the Isle of Man to Blackpool, Belfast City, Galway, Newcastle and Leeds; also between Belfast City & Galway, and Galway to Cork. FLM Aviation will be the main operator for flights from the Isle of Man to Gloucestershire Airport and Cardiff to Anglesey. Links Aviation will be the main operator for flights from Belfast City to Cork. Please see our terms and conditions for full details or enquire at check in.
...
We trust you will enjoy your flight and we would be pleased to hear your comments at our Customer Services address below.

Definitions
As you read these Terms and Conditions, please note that:
"We", "our", "ourselves" and "us” means VanAir Europe AS (see also definition of "Carrier") or FLM Aviation.;
...

So first of all "we" in the preamble clearly means Manx2, but subsequently means one of the actual carriers ; but more confusingly, as a passenger, nowhere do I know with whom my contract is being made: the T&Cs tell me that "we" can refer to either VanAir or FLM. Links Aviation is now the operator for Belfast-Cork, so if I book Belfast-Cork, who's my contract with? Follow-up question for any lawyers out there: what does it do to the nature of the contract if the identity of the counterparty is undefined?

[boguing]

Follow-up question for any lawyers out there: what does it do to the nature of the contract if the identity of the counterparty is undefined?

Stop wasting bandwidth. We will never see the inter party contracts, and don't need to. All that you need to know is that, by law, somebody is insured, and that the victims will receive some sort of 'financial' compensation. Pp is about the accident itself. For the benefit of aviation knowledge, not law.

[wiggy]

Stop wasting bandwidth. ..... All that you need to know is that, by law, somebody is insured, and that the victims will receive some sort of 'financial' compensation. Pp is about the accident itself. For the benefit of aviation knowledge, not law.

So you think it's OK for the uniformed to speculate/make uniformed posts about the accident on "Pp", adding not one jot to the body of "aviation knowledge", as you put it, but if they speculate on the legal side of the accident they they should just STFU??

Oh, and BTW, and at the risk of repeating myself:

Stop wasting bandwidth.....All that you need to know is

Manners aside, I take it you've never done a course in CRM....so should you be posting here?

[Loose rivets]

For the benefit of aviation knowledge, not law.

The captain of any aircraft is required to check the insurance is valid for every single flight. It is the law.

If a person or persons sell tickets to the public without proper insurance being in place, we, the interested parties on PpruNe, want to know about it.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I've never checked the insurance on any of my flights at a major airline in the USA.

captain!

[Loose rivets]

I've never checked the insurance on any of my flights at a major airline in the USA.

That surprises me. Although I hold an ATP I never flew 121.

I did however, discover an out of date insurance certificate while I was with two reputable UK airlines. If I'd taken one of those flights and been jumped, I would have been prosecuted.


I have to say I'm not entirely sure what part of the on-board cover pertains to ticketed passengers. It certainly covered them in some aspects, but there may have been further cover within the ticketing.

[sevenstrokeroll]

our contract had a nice clause about indemnification, as long as we were ''dispatched'' we didn't have a problem with BS like insurance etc.

sure, we had to try and fly safe...and I didn't ONCE try to go under the golden gate bridge!

[redsnail]

Part of our document check is to ensure the insurance certificate which we carry a copy of on board is in date.
(EU bizjet carrier)

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by boguing

Stop wasting bandwidth. We will never see the inter party contracts, and don't need to. All that you need to know is that, by law, somebody is insured, and that the victims will receive some sort of 'financial' compensation. Pp is about the accident itself. For the benefit of aviation knowledge, not law.

Boguing, thanks for your elegant, polite and helpful response, and for clarifying what PPRuNe is about. I'm only new here so hadn't been sure.

I'm not asking about interparty contracts though, just looking for an answer to a simple question: if I book Belfast-Cork today, who's my contract with? Manx2, VanAir, FLM or LinksAir? As a passenger, it's not clear to me (nor, it would appear, to at least one law firm).

[Chuchinchow]

if I book Belfast-Cork today, who's my contract with? Manx2, VanAir, FLM or LinksAir?

If I was to contemplate such a trip today, and taking into consideration the sad recent event on that route, Manx2, VanAir, FLM or LinksAir would be the very last forms of transport I would use.