anyone else had monarch sell your seat

headpin

pennyocs wrote: »

well i received a letter this morning from Monarch but it stated the wrong time and flight number, after checking there was no such flight or flight number on that day.
are they just trying to hold things up or just totally incompetent!!

I would suggest YES and YES.

they are doing what all large organisations do. They play the attrition game knowing that the vast majority of people will give up and go away. Saves 'em a fortune doing that!!! You keep at the toerags. Good luck.

wealdroam

Pennyocs, what did they say at http://www.flightmole.com/forum/index.php?

bagand96

I think I can shed some light on this. After the airspace reopened Monarch planned to operate all flights. However, they changed their flight numbers, adding a 9. So your ZB677 may have became ZB9677. This was so that new customers couldnt just book all the spare seats on these flights, the seats could only be allocated by Monarch themselves for existing stranded customers. So the idea was to cancel the original flights, move all the booked passengers onto the new "9" flight, and then allocate remaining spare seats to stranded passengers.

However the plan went very wrong somewhere. I think it must have been communication of the plan to foreign ground handling agencies. From what I gather when they "cancelled" the original i.e. ZB677 flights, many foreign airport staff just treated it as cancelled, and existing passenegers didn't get moved onto the new "9" flight. Instead it was just treated as a new (and very empty) flight and seats were just sold first come first served - not Monarch's original plan and resulting in the chaos you describe.

I have only heard this information off someone else so don't know if you're specific flight was involved and even how you would go about proving it. I also don't know how it affects your EU claim etc, which flight actually did operate, whether the original or the "9". At least one airport in the Uk showed the original Monarch flight numbers, but infact the actual flight number was the newer "9" flight that was operating (technically the same flight, but then again technially not?)

I don't know if this will help or not.

stoneman

Cityboy wrote: »

This: http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1173

And if you give me an hour or so I shall have posted the letter I mention!

I can never access flightmole. Every time I try i get a message that my IP has been banned. can't fathom that out because I have never even been allowed inside the site. I have contacted the administrator on a couple of occasions but never received a reply

Caz3121

stoneman wrote: »

I can never access flightmole. Every time I try i get a message that my IP has been banned. can't fathom that out because I have never even been allowed inside the site. I have contacted the administrator on a couple of occasions but never received a reply

I have the same problem - cannot suss it out, can't get in from home but can from work (although I don't want to be sitting at work reading it!)

pennyocs

bagand96 wrote: »

I think I can shed some light on this. After the airspace reopened Monarch planned to operate all flights. However, they changed their flight numbers, adding a 9. So your ZB677 may have became ZB9677. This was so that new customers couldnt just book all the spare seats on these flights, the seats could only be allocated by Monarch themselves for existing stranded customers. So the idea was to cancel the original flights, move all the booked passengers onto the new "9" flight, and then allocate remaining spare seats to stranded passengers.

However the plan went very wrong somewhere. I think it must have been communication of the plan to foreign ground handling agencies. From what I gather when they "cancelled" the original i.e. ZB677 flights, many foreign airport staff just treated it as cancelled, and existing passenegers didn't get moved onto the new "9" flight. Instead it was just treated as a new (and very empty) flight and seats were just sold first come first served - not Monarch's original plan and resulting in the chaos you describe.

I have only heard this information off someone else so don't know if you're specific flight was involved and even how you would go about proving it. I also don't know how it affects your EU claim etc, which flight actually did operate, whether the original or the "9". At least one airport in the Uk showed the original Monarch flight numbers, but infact the actual flight number was the newer "9" flight that was operating (technically the same flight, but then again technially not?)

I don't know if this will help or not.[/QUOTE

:eek:
thanks
That does seem to be what happened as there were 2 flights on the screens and people in the queue were saying that the flight numbers had been switched so that would explain that,

bagand96

That does seem to be what happened as there were 2 flights on the screens and people in the queue were saying that the flight numbers had been switched so that would explain that,

Sounds like a right mess, I know someone else involved in a similar situation.

This raises a few questions with regards to your claim, especially if you are going after refused boarding rather than just cancellation and care expenses (I don't know the answers here, others may be able to help)

It would appear that ZB677 did not operate. From what Cityboy says ZB9677 operated. If that information came from ACARS, then that was the flight that operated as per ATC flight plans etc. Regardless of what airport screens may say, it seems ZB9677 operated and ZB677 did not.

Could Monarch claim that you were not denied boarding, as your flight did not operate, it was cancelled? This could be significant. Now, technically it was the same flight, but if it had different flight plans and different numbers then technically it wasn't the same flight? I am not sure how the EU rules would look on this.

Monarch could claim your flight (ZB677) was cancelled due to volcanic ash disruptions, and therefore you are not due any compensation, just due another flight home and accomdation/meals in the mean time. I am not sure if the fact that a similar flight with a similar number operated may be relevant or not. While it was monarch's intentions to carry all booked passengers and the plan fell down, I have no idea how you would prove this? I doubt they will admit it.

Two questions that I can't see have been answered:

a) How did you get home in the end?
b) What have Monarch offered (if anything), and what did their response letter say?

pennyocs

we rescheduled our original flight and came home on the 27th April,
monarch did say at the airport to keep receipts and accommodation and food costs will be repaid.
the response letter i got said that our flight was cancelled but the flight number and time they put were completely wrong they had it as a 18.50 flight when my flight was 20.50. it also said due to closure of UK airspace , but the airspace was open all day that day.

bagand96

pennyocs wrote: »

we rescheduled our original flight and came home on the 27th April,
monarch did say at the airport to keep receipts and accommodation and food costs will be repaid.
the response letter i got said that our flight was cancelled but the flight number and time they put were completely wrong they had it as a 18.50 flight when my flight was 20.50. it also said due to closure of UK airspace , but the airspace was open all day that day.

Ok. So Monarch flew you home on the 27th and have stated you can claim receipted accomodation and food costs. You should get that claim off ASAP.

The next thing is whether you decide to claim for denied boarding compensation. Monarch's defense will be that ZB677 was cancelled due to volcanic ash disruption. Although UK airspace was open, many airlines did not get up to speed with full schedules until at least Wednesday evening if not Thursday due to knock on effects, so taking that in isolation I think Monarch may have a fair claim on that point.

However, there is the point that a flight did operate (9677) which you can prove. This is a very peculiar situation in that although it technically should have been your flight, it operated as a different flight. I suspect that Monarch are not going to pay up for denied boarding and that if you wish to chase it then you will have to escalate it. In which case you may have to prove that ZB9677 should have been your flight, which other than Monarch admitting, which it will suit them not to, I am not sure how you would do?

beth01dog

Hi
I don't want to gate crash your thread but wondering if anybody can advise us if we can claim for compensation due to the 'denied boarding' option.
We had our original flight home with Air Malta cancelled on 16th April and rebooked for Wed 21st April 7pm. On Tues 20th airspace opened but Air Malta website stated our flight next day was cancelled. Phoned them and was told yes it was DEFINITELY cancelled even if air space opened as planes in wrong place etc and we would have to rebook for 28th April.
Next morning (21st - the day of our flight) the Air Malta website said all scheduled flights were leaving as normal. Another call confirmed that our flight was leaving that evening but that out seats had been taken because we had rebooked. Surely they cannot change their minds and not honour the original flight list? I was livid as I felt this was so unfair - they told me Tues night not to wait til the morning to see but that the flight was defintely cancelled.
They did manage to get us a flight for the next morning (Thurs 22nd) after lots of complaining but only to Heathrow (should have been Gatwick where the car was!!)
Are they within their rights to cancel our booking and then giving the seats to somebody else??
Many thanks,