Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

LBD · 11 February 2013 at 4:21PM

Hi Mark,

Thanks for that, it is no more that I expected to be honest, good thing is they have actually cited the previous flight being when the issue appeared adn that is why it affected our flight ...lol:j

djmineral · 11 February 2013 at 9:06PM

Hi All,

finally got my response from Monarch today by email

Re: ZB248 London Gatwick to Sharm El Sheik 8th April 2012

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight.

I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.

In some circumstances, passengers may be entitled to compensation under European Union laws.
However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that prior to take off, the flight deck crew saw cracks in the right hand side windscreen of the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight. The aircraft returned to the stand where engineers attended in order to perform the requisite checks. It was ascertained that a new windscreen was required and this was transferred from Luton to Gatwick via taxi. Engineers from Virgin assisted in the rectification work which was carried out in the Virgin hangar. Extra sealant was required and was sourced by Virgin from their hangar in Heathrow. The rectification work took longer than first anticipated as the sealant would not set, as a result passengers and crew were required to ‘night stop’ in London Gatwick and your flight departed the following day.

Windscreens are liable to break without prior indication as they are subject to extreme temperature changes at high altitude. The necessity to change a windscreen is rare and as such spare components are stored in the main stores at Luton.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

Yours sincerely,

Bearing in mind this happened on Easter sunday and we were told they simply did not have access to the technical staff or parts we had a 24 hour delay.

Does anyone know any stats about windscreen failures ?

I think that this will need legal action now.......

S

Vauban · 11 February 2013 at 10:39PM

djmineral wrote: »

Hi All,

finally got my response from Monarch today by email

Re: ZB248 London Gatwick to Sharm El Sheik 8th April 2012

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight. ... Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

We were on the subsequent Sharm to Gatwick leg, which was consequently delayed by 24 hours.

For your flight I think you could argue that a) cracks in the windscreen are not common but hardly extraordinary; b) that it is unclear when the cracks were spotted, and might have been spotted earlier; c) that regardless it should be within the airline's control to source another aircraft, given they were in Gatwick (it's not reasonable to wait for 24 hours).

But others will have more insightful views than me.

Vauban · 11 February 2013 at 10:56PM

I have just issued court proceedings, via MCOL, against Monarch. They have still yet to respond to my letters - three and a half months on. My final Notice Before Action deadline expired today. Wagons roll!

Mark2spark · 11 February 2013 at 11:01PM

The problem with a cracked windscreen is that it does indeed take a long time for the sealant to 'cure' on the replacement. Whether a judge will take that sort of thing into account is a test IMO.
But for Vauban, it was on the preceeding flight, so not an EC.
Some detective work, possibly via the CAA, to establish how many windscreens are routinely placed annually across the board of all UK based airlines, might be an indication to the judge of how often it occurs. One a week wouldn't be extraordinary, would it? Whereas one a year would.

Ich_2 · 11 February 2013 at 11:11PM

Some detective work, possibly via the CAA, to establish how many windscreens are routinely placed annually across the board of all UK based airlines, might be an indication to the judge of how often it occurs. One a week wouldn't be extraordinary, would it? Whereas one a year would.

One source I've just looked at shows only 3 or 4 incidents of this type last year in the whole world! Though it isn't an exhaustive list a cracked windscreen is fairly rare

vics4life · 11 February 2013 at 11:14PM

Hi, I am about to submit a claim for our delayed flights in August last year... 5 hours + on the outbound and 24 hours + on the return. I have scanned through this and main flight delay forum and cannot grasp the best way of submitting the inital claim...do I use the template letter or use the Monarch site email?
Cheers in adavance
Phil

Vauban · 11 February 2013 at 11:30PM

Mark2spark wrote: »

The problem with a cracked windscreen is that it does indeed take a long time for the sealant to 'cure' on the replacement. Whether a judge will take that sort of thing into account is a test IMO.
But for Vauban, it was on the preceeding flight, so not an EC.
Some detective work, possibly via the CAA, to establish how many windscreens are routinely placed annually across the board of all UK based airlines, might be an indication to the judge of how often it occurs. One a week wouldn't be extraordinary, would it? Whereas one a year would.

But I don't think the fact that it might take 24 hours to fix is relevant to the legislation:

...a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

To my mind this means that a cracked windscreen is no different to any other mechanical or technical fault. As Monarch themselves concede, "Windscreens are liable to break without prior indication as they are subject to extreme temperature changes at high altitude." That sounds like "normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier" to me.

I note the comments about how frequently cracked windscreens arise might be an issue. But again Sturgeon is useful on this point too, noting:

The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

And then you get into the question of what is reasonable to expect ia within the "airline's control". Fixing the fault within 24 hours may not be - but sourcing an alternative aircraft for such a significant delay may well be. Indeed, that's the point of this legislation: to induce the airlines to build in a little redundancy so that they can transport their passengers without delays of over 24 hours should mechanical issues arise.

So I remain more optimistic that DJMineral has a case: but I am no lawyer, so don't listen to me!

111KAB · 12 February 2013 at 9:35AM

Ich wrote: »

One source I've just looked at shows only 3 or 4 incidents of this type last year in the whole world! Though it isn't an exhaustive list a cracked windscreen is fairly rare

Beg to differ - it is a common and frequent problem so much so that it is so standard a cracked screen is seldom reported or even mentioned up until now where it has suddenly become an extraordinary circumstance. The fact that the Aviation Herald even continues to report is unusual - PpruNe is probably a better place to ask your question.

BillLucas · 12 February 2013 at 11:58AM

We have claimed for both our outward and return flights to the Canary Islands which were both delayed for over 3 hours. Our outward flight was due to waiting for a new pat to be sent to Gatwick. we have confirmation that both flights were delaye for 3 consecutive weeks for over 3 hours. Surely Monarch cannot claim exceptional circumstances. We lodged our original claim in 2011 but it was rejected by Monarch, as the EU ruling was still pending. We resubmitted or claim in November 2012 ad have only received a "Holding Response". It a shame there is not a web site elsewhere that specifically lists the Monarch flights that are settled ,rejected or pending. Possibilly if several people are claiming for the same flight they could all go to court together!!!

Monarch delays & Compensations. Listed flights denied in O.P.

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free