 Poster: A snowHead
|
halfhand, BA fly direct from London. Several other operators fly with one stop, such as BMI, Air France and Alitalia, and charge about half of the BA direct fare cost.
(actually, just looking at the current BA prices, it's cheaper to fly to Denver than Turin)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Interesting discussion - I look forward to seeing what happens. We used to go with easyjet to Zurich from Luton. When the Zurich flight was axed we decided to fly Swiss from Birmingham instead (B'ham is out local airport anyway. Swiss is more expensive but we can book our luggage, boots and Skis all the way through to our Hotel in Wengen. Coming back we can take the Baggage to the Station at Wengen the night before our flight, and get our boarding card for the flight from Zurich. Next morning hop on the train and straight on to the plane with no more check in. It is more expensive but the bliss of not bothering about bags and skis until we reach our final destination is imho worth it.
Anyway good luck with easyjet! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
The call on what is an unusual size / shape of checked baggage is as often defined by the airport's conveyors and carousels as by the airlines themselves. Anything likely to block the system is classed as 'oversized baggage' and has to be manually handled separately which is an extra cost somebody has to bear. For ski charters, as many will know, your skis never go onto the normal baggage system. You hump them to a big cart - saving someone else the hassle and eliminating a cost pocket. Airlines that containerise the baggage prefer uniformity of size as it makes it easier to fill the boxes. Oddly shaped kit is a real hassle - often also for the owner... (try taking it on a tube train or manhandling it for any distance).
For scheduled flights with only a comparatively small number of oversized bags, there is an additional handling cost someone has to pay. How much of this charge ends up in the airline's pocket is another question.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 9-03-06 10:34; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
halfhand, Ryanair. They're even worse.
Wear The Fox Hat, Don't be facetious. You know as well as I that they didn't use to charge for them. Now they do. What changed? Did skis/boards get bigger? Heavier? No. They realised there's a buck to be made. It costs them nothing extra to transport. If my luggage is contained in my board bag in its entirety and it's less than 20 kilos, I shouldn't have to pay any extra.
rob@rar.org.uk, You are missing the point Rob. They cannot enforce unfair/extortionate charges whether they have written them in 8ft high orange letters on the Luton runway or not. Anyhow, their booking conditions do not mention snowboards. The fact that an FAQ answer on the website does is utterly irrelevant.
I agree that anyone taking any EXTRA stuff, like a full suitcase AND a set of skis or a snowboard should pay a bit extra, but literally a bit. £5 each way would more than cover these fictitious "costs" they allude to. If, however, it is possible to get all your luggage and a snowboard into a lightweight soft case and it comes in under 20 kilos, why should I be penalised? At what point does luggage become odd-shaped? At 100cm? 130cm? 150cm? If Easyjet have a problem with luggage of a certain dimension, they should put it clearly on their booking terms. They haven't so they haven't got a leg to stand on. I know I'm right here (or rather my lawyer friend does). I will either not pay, or will be able to recover anything they forcibly charge me for my snowboard bag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| carled wrote: |
| At what point does luggage become odd-shaped? At 100cm? 130cm? 150cm? |
I don't know the answer but see my post above - it is often the airport facilities (or the lack of them) that force a decision. Snowboarders and skiers are not uniquely suffering. Ask golfers, cyclists, anglers and any number of other travelling sportsmen. No airline can define every possible exclusion in their terms and conditions. Most international carriers have agreed on a combination of bag dimensions being below a maximum number and a single item weight limit of 32 kgs. I'd be surprised if Easyjet differ from industry norms. Except that I believe if you can lift it into in an overhead bin without assistance and it physically fits, it can go up there - no weighing of hand baggage. It ain't all bad
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 9-03-06 10:46; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
carled, for Gawd's sake, add up the total costs for each of your travel alternatives and pick the best deal. Stop quibbling over the detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
| If Easyjet have a problem with luggage of a certain dimension, they should put it clearly on their booking terms. They haven't so they haven't got a leg to stand on. I know I'm right here (or rather my lawyer friend does). I will either not pay, or will be able to recover anything they forcibly charge me for my snowboard bag. |
You're not right though, it's very, very clear, for the second time :
| Quote: |
(b) We may refuse to carry as Baggage any item because of its size, shape, weight or character.
(c) We may refuse to accept Baggage for carriage unless properly packed in suitcases or other suitable containers to ensure safe carriage with ordinary care in handling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk, You are missing the point Rob. They cannot enforce unfair/extortionate charges whether they have written them in 8ft high orange letters on the Luton runway or not. Anyhow, their booking conditions do not mention snowboards. The fact that an FAQ answer on the website does is utterly irrelevant.
|
I don't think I'm missing any reasonable point. If you think they are charging extortionate prices, why are you flying with them?
The point about T&C references to skis but not snowboards is just pedantic nonsense. My slalom skis are shorter than most snowboards, but I don't think I shouldn't be charged for them. The fact is that a ski or board bag is a significantly different shape from the vast majority of items which are conveyed around airports on automatic systems (therefore requiring, at additional cost, some manual intervention).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
We're getting nowhere. I can't be bothered to go into it all again. Ise, if you're going to argue with my points, try to read and understand them first. Rob, "pedantic nonsense" is what makes these things unenforceable in law. Laundryman, I already did that and I'm making a point on principle.
Thank you and good day. I'm off to play in the sandpit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carled, I sympathise with you on this one, and agree that with ski carriage charges the airlines are simply applying a stealth tax to increase their profits.
But you posted earlier that you chose Easyjet because they were one of only 2 operators that could get you and the family to Turin for less than £1000. My question is - why on earth don't you drive? Total cost will be well under £500 and you will get 8 days skiing rather than 6. The way to combat the big companies like Easyjet is not to slag them off, but as rab@rar said, just take your business elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Because I'm travelling in a group of 18 and we didn't think that driving that distance with kids was fair on them. It was considered, but rejected.
I'm happy to pay a reasonable charge for extra, unwieldy baggage as long as:
a) it is, indeed, excess and not just my normal luggage allowance that just happens to be in a longer, thinner case than usual and
b) it is, indeed, a reasonable charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| carled wrote: |
| Rob, "pedantic nonsense" is what makes these things unenforceable in law. |
So you think it's OK to charge for skis, but not for boards, or are you just trying to take advantage of an alleged loophole in their T&Cs?
I think as ise has pointed out, their T&Cs allow them to decline any baggage because of its size or shape, so I'm not certain why you think that you have such a strong case against easyjet. I sincerely hope that the fuss you are about to make doesn't spoil the start of your holiday.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 9-03-06 11:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
I'm happy to pay a reasonable charge for extra, unwieldy baggage as long as:
a) it is, indeed, excess and not just my normal luggage allowance that just happens to be in a longer, thinner case than usual and
b) it is, indeed, a reasonable charge. |
Who is to judge what is reasonable and what is not reasonable? The lo-cost airline market is highly competitive, so there are no accusations of cartel-behaviour with regard to ski carriage charges that I'm aware off. You're not obliged to pay these charges if you want to fly with easyjet (if you don't want to pay, don't take skis/boards). And finally, you have accepted that you have no idea to the actual cost of providing this service, never mind the business model that easyjet uses to make a profit for its shareholders.
I say again, if this charge is so unreasonably expensive, why aren't you flying with someone else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Tour ops used to (and perhaps still do) charge the supplement, and were doing it long before Easyjet were around.
If you have an odd-shaped bag, or one that is more fragile than a standard case, then it requires different handling. It may also require you to sign a baggage waver when you are checking it in.
If your snowboard bag can travel along the standard conveyor belt from check in to the plane, then you shouldn't have to pay any extra. If not, for whatever reason, then you should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Ryanair fly to Turin.
Carled, I'm sure the T&Cs will refer to the "rules" on their website, which clearly state on the website of easyjet.com (as pointed out by Elizabeth):
Bicycles, golf equipment, and skis/snowboards are subject to a handling fee of £15 per item, per flight. Please visit our Carrier's Regulations for full details.
It then refers you to their "carrier regulations", which is here http://www.easyjet.com/en/Book/regulations.html#baggage
that says
Sporting equipment
Each passenger is allowed a maximum hold baggage weight of 50 kilos including any sports equipment, subject to available space. As items of sporting equipment are inherently unsuitable for carriage by airlines, easyJet is prepared to carry such items on a ‘limited release’ (i.e. entirely ‘at your own risk’ for damage or delay) basis. You may therefore wish to ensure that you have suitable private insurance cover in force for such items. The maximum weight for any single piece of baggage is 32 kgs.
Bicycles (1), golf equipment, and skis, surfboards, wind surfers, hang gliders, and firearms (2)
An additional fee is charged per item per flight for the carriage of the above items as set out in the table below.
Currency Per flight
GBP 15.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
gregh, Point out to me exactly where in the easyjet terms and conditions it states "snowboards" as you have appended to the "skis" bit in the first part of your post. It doesn't exist.
I'm getting bored of pointing this out. Can people stop posting the same old tired tripe please? It does not state anywhere in the T's & C's of easyjet that snowboards are subject to the charge. Furthermore it does not state what consitutes oversized baggage. You may think I'm "trying it on" and "exploiting a loophole" and, if so, who cares? I'm not harming you by doing so, I'm just pointing out their own stupidity in the wording of their regulations.
If anyone has found a set of T's & C's belonging to Easyjet where it does mention snowboards, I'd be delighted to read it. In the meantime, please accept once and for all that the version I have printed off does not contain the word "snowboard" and they cannot legally change the t's and c's of my contract with them without my approval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
carled, good luck. I'm sure many of us will be interested to hear how you get on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
and how fast they update their T&Cs 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Carled, while this does not specify snowboards, it equally means they may refuse to carry yours...
Article 9
Baggage
9.1. Items Unacceptable as Baggage
(a) You must not include in your Baggage:
(i) items which do not constitute Baggage as defined in Article 1 hereof properly packed in suitcases or other suitable containers in order to ensure safe carriage with ordinary care in handling;
(iv) items which in our reasonable opinion are unsuitable for carriage by reason of their weight, size or character, such as fragile or perishable items;
(e) If any items referred to in (a) (b) (c) or (d) of this paragraph are carried, whether or not they are prohibited from carriage as Baggage, the carriage thereof shall be subject to the charges, limitations of liability and other provisions of these Terms and Conditions applicable to the carriage of Baggage.
9.2. Right to Refuse Baggage
(b) We may refuse to carry as Baggage any item because of its size, shape, weight or character.
(c) We may refuse to accept Baggage for carriage unless properly packed in suitcases or other suitable containers to ensure safe carriage with ordinary care in handling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I hope this is going to be on the Airline program 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, a padded snowboard bag is obviously a "suitable container" and, as such, doesn't trigger any of those "get out" clauses. It's not as heavy as the max limit (20 kilos), so it isn't a risk to anyone. My eight year old daughter can carry it, so if their baggage handlers can't I'd suggest new baggage handlers...
Your other clause (iv) is also not relevant as my bag isn't overweight, nor could it's size or character be "reasonably" assessed as being unsuitable, as they've carried it without charge on 3 previous occasions from the same airport. It's not fragile and it's not perishable.
Granted, their "catch all" clause 9.2 (b) has me, but (c) does not. Therefore my argument would be "what makes it unsuitable this year when it was ok for the last two years?".
I'm not intending getting into a fuss about it, I won't make a scene and I shall remain calm and reasonable, but I will point out that their terms and conditions do not allow them to charge me for a snowboard under the weight limit. If they insist on me paying, I will put in a small claims court claim for a refund and they haven't a hope in hell of defending it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carled wrote: |
| I'm not intending getting into a fuss about it, I won't make a scene and I shall remain calm and reasonable, but I will point out that their terms and conditions do not allow them to charge me for a snowboard under the weight limit. If they insist on me paying, I will put in a small claims court claim for a refund and they haven't a hope in hell of defending it. |
Wouldn't it just be easier to fly with someone else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As items of sporting equipment are inherently unsuitable for carriage by airlines, easyJet is prepared to carry such items on a ‘limited release’ (i.e. entirely ‘at your own risk’ for damage or delay) basis. You may therefore wish to ensure that you have suitable private insurance cover in force for such items.
An additional fee is charged (see table below) for items that require manual handling e.g. surfboards, windsurfers, hang-gliders, and firearms.
The "e.g." is very vague, sufficient enough to probably get them off in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
rob@rar.org.uk, If it was just me, or just me & the family I could organise it a year in advance and all would be rosy. As it is, I have to wait for approx 20 people to sort their lives out to a point whereby they can commit to a school holiday week. I then have to look for the best combination of price & convenience with cheap flight operators as all of the scheduled ones cost shedloads more.
Therefore the answer is no, I cannot fly with someone else in this particular case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| carled wrote: |
rob@rar.org.uk, If it was just me, or just me & the family I could organise it a year in advance and all would be rosy. As it is, I have to wait for approx 20 people to sort their lives out to a point whereby they can commit to a school holiday week. I then have to look for the best combination of price & convenience with cheap flight operators as all of the scheduled ones cost shedloads more.
Therefore the answer is no, I cannot fly with someone else in this particular case. |
So you're going with Easyjet because they offer the best combination of price and convenience. Presumabably this is still the case when you add in the cost of ski/board carriage?
I'm still at a loss to understand why you are so opposed to easyjet's policy for charging this supplement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, The "e.g." certainly is but the "An additional fee is charged per flight for the carriage of bicycles, golf equipment, and skis." certainly isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I'm with carled on this one.
If I had a lawyer mate who was adamant that I had a case then I'd probably do exactly what he's doing - he's got nothing to lose.
If he loses then it's no skin off any of our noses, but should he win then it's great news for all of us - so lay off him! Why such aggression chaps?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I'm still at a loss to understand why you are so opposed to easyjet's policy for charging this supplement?
|
Because it's not a reasonable charge for them to make. They are trying it on purely to make extra money. I object to people taking the pee like that and will consider it a virtuous victory if I manage to winkle out of it.
Furthermore, it appears that BA are starting to charge now anyway in certain airports... looks like they've caught on to the scam too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dave Burt wrote: |
| Why such aggression chaps?! |
I hope I'm not coming across as aggressive - that's certainly not my intention. Simply trying to have a discussion about the merits or otherwise of easyjet pricing policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| carled wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm still at a loss to understand why you are so opposed to easyjet's policy for charging this supplement?
|
Because it's not a reasonable charge for them to make. They are trying it on purely to make extra money. |
This is getting a bit circular, but if you think easyjet are poor value for money why not fly with someone else?
easyjet could jack up their prices by £30 for each passenger and offer "free" ski (and board) carriage. Would you prefer that model of pricing?
Which flights is BA charging for skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| carled wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat, a padded snowboard bag is obviously a "suitable container" and, as such, doesn't trigger any of those "get out" clauses. It's not as heavy as the max limit (20 kilos), so it isn't a risk to anyone. My eight year old daughter can carry it, so if their baggage handlers can't I'd suggest new baggage handlers.... |
So, if the baggage handlers deal with it the same way that can happen with suitcases, then you're saying that you are happy, e.g. if it is lnger than most suitcases, and a case is dropped on it so that the board breaks, then you are happy?
(I had a hand made guitar case get smashed once by a case being dropped on it, but because the case was marked Fragile by the airline, that they recognised it as such, then I was able to claim against them)
| carled wrote: |
| Your other clause (iv) is also not relevant as my bag isn't overweight, nor could it's size or character be "reasonably" assessed as being unsuitable, as they've carried it without charge on 3 previous occasions from the same airport. It's not fragile and it's not perishable.. |
These aren't MY clauses, they are the clauses of Easyjet. They mention reasonable size, so, I ask you, will your snowboard bag fit on the standard conveyor at check-in, and be able to travel along that, and get to the plane that way, or is it of a non-standard size, i.e. it won't go on that conveyor?
| carled wrote: |
| ...my argument would be "what makes it unsuitable this year when it was ok for the last two years?". |
Perhaps they have changed their Ts&Cs in the last 2 years, and perhaps that has been because of the HSE/baggage handlers.
I hear that asbestos isn't legal any more in certain buildings. But it used to be!
| carled wrote: |
| I'm not intending getting into a fuss about it, . |
Too late, you already have on here!
| carled wrote: |
| I will point out that their terms and conditions do not allow them to charge me for a snowboard under the weight limit. If they insist on me paying, I will put in a small claims court claim for a refund and they haven't a hope in hell of defending it. |
I think it is clear from their Ts & Cs that they can refuse to carry, and you dont have a hope in hell of defending yourself.
But please, the more I read what you've written, the more you sound like someone who is looking to find a company to sue. Please, step away from the phone. Do NOT call ambulance chasers direct.
Of course, you may have slightly upset your chances by posting on here what your intentions are, when many have highlighted that you are on at best dubious ground!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| carled wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm still at a loss to understand why you are so opposed to easyjet's policy for charging this supplement?
|
Because it's not a reasonable charge for them to make. They are trying it on purely to make extra money. |
Sorry, I asked this earlier, and you didn't really answer, but what would be a reasonable charge to make?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
Carled, while this does not specify snowboards, it equally means they may refuse to carry yours...
Article 9
Baggage
9.1. Items Unacceptable as Baggage
(a) You must not include in your Baggage:
(i) items which do not constitute Baggage as defined in Article 1 hereof properly packed in suitcases or other suitable containers in order to ensure safe carriage with ordinary care in handling;
(iv) items which in our reasonable opinion are unsuitable for carriage by reason of their weight, size or character, such as fragile or perishable items;
(e) If any items referred to in (a) (b) (c) or (d) of this paragraph are carried, whether or not they are prohibited from carriage as Baggage, the carriage thereof shall be subject to the charges, limitations of liability and other provisions of these Terms and Conditions applicable to the carriage of Baggage.
9.2. Right to Refuse Baggage
(b) We may refuse to carry as Baggage any item because of its size, shape, weight or character.
(c) We may refuse to accept Baggage for carriage unless properly packed in suitcases or other suitable containers to ensure safe carriage with ordinary care in handling. |
i) I doubt that they could reasonably argue that a board bag is not a suitable container, nor that it would require anything but ordinary care and handling to esnure its safe carriage.
iv) I doubt that they could argue a 17kg board bag is unsuitable for carriage by reason of its size, weight or character.
b) ditto
c) I doubt they could reasonably argue that carled's board bag is not properly packed.
However I think Frosty's "e.g." might be enough for them to win.
Caveat: I know nothing about legal stuff so am probably talking out of my @rse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Dave Burt, you say that b is something that you think they couldn't argue, well, I think it is worded openly enough that they could!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the support Dave Burt, but I'm not overly concerned at the tone people are taking with me... I often get this bewilderment from other people when I get a bee in my bonnet!
rob@rar.org.uk, If money is a serious point of concern to most of my group of friends (which it is) then I have to find the cheapest prices I can. Only 3 people in the group have their own boards. No skis. Therefore to make the rest of the group pay more than us would be a travesty. However, as I have pointed out before, I am not taking extra baggage, so why should I pay extra when, in fact, I am actually taking less (weight wise) than my allotted limit?
I have also already stated that if I was taking extra on top of, say, a suitcase then I would be happy to pay a reasonable charge. I don't feel that £30 for a return flight for my snowboard is a reasonable price. £5 each way, perhaps, but I stick by my allegation that the baggage handlers won't see a penny of that £30 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carled, why £5? Is that based on the price of your seats on the flight, the distance travelled, or what? I mean, if you paid £500 for the seat, would £5 still be the right price, or if you were flying further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, chill out. You're getting in a tizz about this and I don't see why. I'm not asking you to pay the charge, I'm just telling people that I won't be and why I'm not going to. Seems relevant enough on this forum. If the baggage handlers can smash my snowboard by dropping something on it when I can hardly bend it with my 16 stone when jumping around on it, then they're really working hard on causing damage...
My board has never gone down the conveyor - I've always carried it myself to outsized baggage and watched them put it (without any obvious extra effort or even forklift trucks) straight onto a luggage trolley along with lots of other boards and skis...
If you'd read my previous posts, you'd see that I've said all along that if they refuse to carry unless I pay, I will pay and claim the money back. They cannot defend my claim on the grounds of the terms and conditions they have at present. I win. It's not up for debate - it's basic law and what my friend makes a living at.
Oh and
| Quote: |
| ...more you sound like someone who is looking to find a company to sue |
is just getting a teensy bit personal and childish, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| Dave Burt, you say that b is something that you think they couldn't argue, well, I think it is worded openly enough that they could! |
I'm sure they would try, but I'd be surprised if a court didn't want to see evidence of the guidelines they use to inform the exercising of their discretion, and equally surprised if a court agreed that an item only 170cm long weighing only 17kg was sufficiently large/heavy/characterful to justify special treatment.
However, I refer you again to my earlier caveat!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
See you in court, Gentlemen!!
