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

MontyWomble

Vauban wrote: »

Yes. They explained in their letter that they didn't have the facilities in Gatwick to fix the windscreen (because obviously Gatwick is not a major international hub or anything) and so the parts had to be sent by taxi from Luton. Then they had to borrow adhesive from Virgin Atlantic (really!), which all took longer than expected. Then - though they haven't said this - I heard at the time that the crew would be "out of time" if they left for Sharm. So everyone overnighted in London, and we waited in Egypt. We got back over 24 hours late.

I am suspicious about the claim that the cracks happened as the plane was pushing back. I have corresponded with one of the passengers who were on that flight. I asked him:

"Do you know whether the crack in the windscreen happened on the runway as you were leaving, or whether it was just spotted as they were preparing to take off?"

He replied:

"We never even got to board the plane so can only assume that the damage was noticed on previous in-bound flight and should be maintenance."

Odd, huh?

Hearing this makes me trust Monarch even less. They are either blatantly lying or can't find exact records of what happened and so are making it up.

They were aware of the cracked windscreen on our flight at least 3 hours before departure and potentially more as this is only when we discovered, which leads me to believe it was also caused on the previous flight. But, there is no one posted on here with a cracked windscreen a similar time to our flight...

111KAB

It doesn't matter if they do or don't have the parts or they do or don't have the sealant that is their problem and should not be yours - it is part of the life of an aircraft - an ordinary matter. Do not worry yourself with the why or wherefore - they cocked up so should pay up ~ end of.

bluep

Does anyone find point 2 rather ridiculous. I work in taking cases to Tribunal (in a completely different area of the law I hasten to add) and if that kind of argument came up in one of my cases, the judge would have absolutely no time for a defendent who, despite having all records showing conclusively that someone did something specific, still wanted them to prove it. Monarch should know without doubt whether the claimant checked it, provided their passport and were definitely on that flight.

Vauban

bluep wrote: »

Does anyone find point 2 rather ridiculous. I work in taking cases to Tribunal (in a completely different area of the law I hasten to add) and if that kind of argument came up in one of my cases, the judge would have absolutely no time for a defendent who, despite having all records showing conclusively that someone did something specific, still wanted them to prove it. Monarch should know without doubt whether the claimant checked it, provided their passport and were definitely on that flight.

I find it a bit pathetic, to be honest. What constitutes strict proof? Presumably it is meant to deter me from proceeding?

I have my electronic tickets, but I suppose that doesn't strictly prove I was on the flight. I have my passports stamped for Egypt on the dates concerned, but I suppose that doesn't prove how I got to Egypt. I have a letter to me from Monarch apologising for the fact that my flight was delayed, and suggesting I contact my travel insurance company - oh, hold on: that ought to do it.;)

NorthumberlandLady

Hi!
when sending off my letter to Monarch I thought i would save time and also send off their claim forms at the same time.
With their claim forms there are guidance notes on filling in the forms and they say that you can only make a claim if the delay was NOT caused by EC
This is what they say in their guidance notes:-

"You may not be entitled to compensation despite suffering a delayed flight where the delay was caused by Extraordinary Circumstances. The CAA has issued guidance on the meaning of Extraordinary Circumstances as including but not limited to the following:
a) Aircraft technical faults discovered just before flight or during the flight concerned....."

Surely a technical fault DOES NOT come under the classification of an EC so how can they get away with writing this?

Clairewell

Thank you to all on this thread, for the advice and template letters etc. in the post this morning we received chqs from Monarch totalling £3817 for our 4 hour delay ZB812 Luton to Bodrum 31/5/12 for our family of 11 ( on list of agreed flights)

Ich_2

Just a point, do not compare an aircraft windscreen with a car version. Aircraft screens are a number of bonded layers that include heating elements that are usually switched on from start to end of a flight. It is therefore quite likely a crack could occur as the windscreen cools at the end of a flight and after that crew has left the aircraft. It then would often not be spotted until a new crew gets on-board prior to the next flight

Mark2spark

Vauban, my initial reaction would be to ask the judge to strike out everything that Monarch have mentioned about cracked windscreens as it's not your flight. Prepare a bunch of stuff from the various rulings in the meantime which backs up 'to the flight concerned' EC's.

I love the spin that Monarch have introduced, calling flights 'outbound sectors', as if the two flights are essentially one flight, there and back legs. If there's a crew change then it's two flights isn't it?

You also need to ask them to produce the records of what other airplanes they tried to lease for your flight, as per the German courts have been taking the airlines to task on.

Mark2spark

One further thing, the recent EC changes to 261 that have been proposed, ie extending the delay threshold for compensation from 3 hours to 5 hours, citing that it's not enough time in a lot of cases for airlines to make repairs on last minute problems, - well, why would they need to extend this deadline if a plane going tech is an EC?
Because it isn't, that's why.
Monarch are on very sticky ground if a judge makes a positive ruling for Vauban, as Monarch are going to have to revisit virtually all of their denied claims due to EC's.
There might be an out of court settlement made on the day of the hearing. Which will suit Vauban but not the thousands of others waiting for the UK courts to start sticking the knife into the airlines.

Ich_2

I think one thing that is being missed is the word "reasonable" which is in the legislation. There seems to be too much emphasis on quick fix on here without taking any note of the logistics of what is required.
Whilst it does not excuse some of the actions of the airlines that word should be born in mind.