|
Post by GUEST on Jan 21, 2012 19:09:30 GMT
I think that the CAA are covering their backs on this one not taking sides. The ball is in Jet2's court but they can't sit on it for long as this could expose them to counter claims. I'm talking days not weeks here. The suggestion by Jet2 of market research on the extent of confusion over names shows they are playing for time. They can't honestly believe there is any meaningful similarity. No reasonable person would! I do hope they live to regret starting this but memories are short in business and "business is business." However, it's certainly demeaned Jet2 in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 21, 2012 19:33:01 GMT
The thing is though, what happens if jet2 do decide to take further action? I think that the CAA have ordered them to stop selling flights is particularly cpncerning, whether it is standard practice in such situations or not!
|
|
|
Post by Humberside on Jan 21, 2012 22:36:38 GMT
The lawyers will be earning their money thats for sure
|
|
|
Post by MrMoose on Jan 22, 2012 0:15:53 GMT
IMHO JetXtra would be better changing their name, and call Jet2's bluff. The reason is simply because, as it is a new business, it is much easier to change their name now - then months down the line, should Jet2 win any legal challenge. As JetXtra is still a new brand, it will be much easier to re-brand now, than months down the line, when the brand will hopefully, be better known.
|
|
|
Post by tugman on Jan 22, 2012 10:54:20 GMT
Any chance of ALL interested parties petitioning jet2? I know passengers are very fickle when it comes to who they allow to carry them, but with a company flying from your local airport being challenged with this sort of ludicrous behaviour by a bully boy airline at an airport which is seldom serviced by people in the NE Lincs area at least(in many years of taxi driving in my previous job I could count on one hand the holidaymakers departing from LBA) i think the backing would be overwhelming. Jet2 would not welcome too much bad publicity.
As an after thought,I have decided to drop a line to my local MP.Let's hope something helps sooner rather than later.I feel really disappointed and let down. Are this company aware of the jobs situation 78 miles away from their ivory towers?
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Jan 22, 2012 12:18:48 GMT
MP support would help JetXtra win in the PR stakes but the fact remains Jet2 must put up (i.e do what they said they would do immediately in their letter) or shut up ( let it drop.) They must decide quickly otherwise they expose themselves to risk of a variety of counter claims.
CAA are risk averse bureaucrats - remember ash cloud - so I wouldn't read sinister motives in their actions at this time.
I do hope JetXtra are getting good, aggressive legal advice to deal Jet2. The basis of Jet2's case is weak and they probably know that.
|
|
|
Post by kirmingtonuser on Jan 22, 2012 19:40:19 GMT
The BBC 6.30 Look North news this evening reported that the CAA had not called for bookings to be suspended because of the dispute over the trading name. The reason for the suspension was that they had exceeded their sales allocation. Does this mean that JetXtra bookings are going so well that they have exceeded the size of their ATOL bond ?
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 22, 2012 20:47:47 GMT
So why are jetXtra releasing information on their website relating to Jet2? Seems jetXtra are playing with fire..
|
|
|
Post by tugman on Jan 23, 2012 10:10:08 GMT
Found this on Travelmole forum
Poor Legal Advice for JET2
Having spent a fair part of my working life in brand marketing, I recognise a badly conceived legal attempt to protect market share when I see it: as JetXtra says the only similarity is the JET component of the 2 brand names and JET is a word in common use in the English language - hence, in the absence of any similarities in the logos, there is not a chnace in hell of JET2's claim being upheld - agreed that this a spoiling tactic against a legitimate competitor.
By Chris Eyre, Thursday, January 19, 2012
Looks like those in the know realise this action is not going to succeed. It is only spoiling tactics to try and panic people into booking with them whilst question marks hang over jetXtra.
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 23, 2012 12:01:31 GMT
www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2012/01/23/39367/jetxtra+forced+to+stop+selling+tickets+by+the+caa.htmlI seem to remember this is the exact same trouble that Nexus Airways had No wonder Jet2 are concerned about passengers confusing them with this setup (not that I think they would). I dont think this will be getting off the ground unfortunately. Notice how HAT seem to have distanced themselves from this, and are now advertising flights to Ibiza from DSA? Also posting up questions like 'what sort of holidays do you want to see?'.. Just what HUY didn't need.
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 23, 2012 14:46:24 GMT
To add to my last post. Did jetXtra know that they would be restricted by CTT Groups ATOL licence (150 passengers over the three month period??) despite putting a schedule on which would offer a capacity of some 9000??
I have little knowledge of how these ATOL licences work, so would like clarification from someone who knows more on the subject. But it sounds a bit dodgy that they may have knowingly put these flights up for sale despite being restricted to 150 passengers being covered by ATOL. It also concerns me that they have tried to cover over this by blaming the CAA's actions on the Jet2 dispute (which has probably been blown out of proportion).
Despite being told by people at the airport that this could be the break that the airport needs, unfortunately I believe it could turn out to be the type of outfit the airport really doesn't need. Clearly some hard work has been put into selling the flights by HAT and the like, as if they have exceeded their permitted sales in just a week (and being a hitherto unknown airline) it shows clear demand for such flights.
Just a shame that airlines like Jet2 have made their stance clear on HUY, and that being that HUY is very much part of the larger LBA catchment area.
Hopefully there is the off chance that FR could announce something by the end of the week, but there is probably a 1% chance of this actually happening. If jetXtra and the CTT Group can extend their ATOL licence and put the flights back on sale then good on them, however I'm not convinced, and we could just be witnessing history repeating itself again with another Nexus Airways.
|
|
|
Post by Humberside on Jan 23, 2012 14:47:31 GMT
The name dispute is one thing, but it's a very big oversight not to ensure a compliant ATOL license for the number of sales you expect to make. Not the sort of oversight you would expect a reputable operator to make. It makes me very worried just how experienced those involved with jetXtra are, and how 'watertight' their business plan is. The name dispute is just a convienent way to distract attention from the ATOL issue
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 23, 2012 16:17:52 GMT
Questions have been asked on their Facebook page, but JetXtra are yet to respond it seems.
|
|
|
Post by pug on Jan 23, 2012 16:30:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Jan 23, 2012 17:12:52 GMT
No sign of Jet2 putting their legal money where there mouth has been though! They might yet, but everyday that passes strengthens the view that they've been following a spoiler strategy.
Jetextra's news item still claims that CAA have said Jetxtra cannot be added to CCT Group ATOL whilst the name is in contention. So, if this is true, there is some substance to their original statement about Jet2.
It all depends on CAA now.
|
|