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

Winton_Girl

how can so many cracked windscreens on Monarch's aircraft be extraordinary circumstances ???????

Vauban

Winton_Girl wrote: »

how can so many cracked windscreens on Monarch's aircraft be extraordinary circumstances ???????

The simple answer is that they can't. But even one cracked windscreen isn't extraordinary, if - as Monarch's own defence says - it results from exposure to extreme temperatures and hih altitudes (ie the normal business of flying).

Was your flight blighted by this issue. Which was it?

Missymoo123

Vauban wrote: »

So what d'ya gonna do, Missymoo?

mcol mcol mmmmmmmmmmmcccccccccolll:beer:

PaulPonting

TomLikesSausages wrote: »

Flight MON 1506 on 21st September 2011 from Gatwick to Fueteventura; Claim denied due to extraordinary circumstances. Reason Given Rudder Problems. Please Mark could you add to list of denied claims

We received a letter from Monarch in October 2011 when we complained.
Part of the text which we consider the most relevant, from their 2 page letter stated "With regard to your outward flight,you are already aware that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed a technical fault with a rudder problem at Gatwick the day before. The only immediate available spare had to be sent from France. rectification work was due to be carried out during the early hours of 21st September. Given that technical problems are unpredictable as to where and when they occur, every delay situation is different and requires optimum solution. the repair took longer than anticipated and unfortunately there was no other aircraft available to reduce the delay of 5 hours 35 minutes

There was no mention in their original letter of extraordinary or unusual circumstances which they no claim to be the case.

We have sent a copy of everything to the CAA asking them to investigate and will await their response in due course as we consider because of the original correspondences from Monarch our case may be slightly different as the company had already given a full explanation. Whilst we are aware that probably in the long run the best course of action is to take Monarch to court we do not feel comfortable doing so, especially as we are now pensioners. It probably customers like us that Monarch can use their "Bully Boy" tactics to scare us off.

However what is anyone's opinion, in view of Monarch's letter if October 2010 and them not mentioning any extraordinary circumstances at the time; would this fact strengthen our case to any great degree.Thank you for any advise.

I would have thought TLC had a cast iron case a Monarch did not quote anything unusual in their letter to him. It just goes to show how little I know. There must be loads of complainants that are wary about going to court as it is not something most people would normally consider. Have any cases yet been heard and if so what are the results. If we knew whether a majority of claims came out in favour against Monarch then it would certainly encourage me to proceed with court proceedings. However if the earl cases came out in favour of Monarch it would seem a waste of time. I know I am relying on some "Confident Pioneers" to do the initial court action for which I apologise but there must be a number of people in a similar frame of mind to myself. Is there a separate form for all flight compensation claims Court cases for all airlines. If one airlines pays out loses the court case for say Rudder Problems then common sense should say that is an indication how the court sees things. There should not be a rule for one airline and not another,

Vauban

PaulPonting wrote: »

I would have thought TLC had a cast iron case a Monarch did not quote anything unusual in their letter to him. It just goes to show how little I know. There must be loads of complainants that are wary about going to court as it is not something most people would normally consider. Have any cases yet been heard and if so what are the results. If we knew whether a majority of claims came out in favour against Monarch then it would certainly encourage me to proceed with court proceedings. However if the earl cases came out in favour of Monarch it would seem a waste of time. I know I am relying on some "Confident Pioneers" to do the initial court action for which I apologise but there must be a number of people in a similar frame of mind to myself. Is there a separate form for all flight compensation claims Court cases for all airlines. If one airlines pays out loses the court case for say Rudder Problems then common sense should say that is an indication how the court sees things. There should not be a rule for one airline and not another,

I do understand this - though arguably if everyone was brave and jumped in together we overload the airlines, who'd have to think more seriously about the costs of such frivolous timewasting.

That said, I continue to read rumours about the viability of certain airlines. And if they go under, your claim disappears. Given it could take six months to get any money from starting a claim, anyone standing on the sidelines is taking a calculated risk too.

I think the biggest problem is that people are intimidated by the Court process. But in that case the no-win companies seem to me to be the best route: a good chance of 70% now, rather than nothing in 12 months time.

PaulPonting

Has anybody had a court case heard yet by a no win no fee company and if so what is the outcome. Which no win no fee company is the best bet as I believe some are bordering being "cowboys"!!. Have any court cases yet been heard on the flight delay compensation for either an individual or a no win no fee company. if not has anybody got a date when their case is the be heard. Ho strong are the rumours about any airlines going to the wall or is this just scaremongering!!

Lapduc

Back from holiday to find rejection letter from Monarch re flight ZB3566 Luton to Rome 3rd April 2012 (I actually claimed for delays on ZB5408 from Birmingham to Rome!)
Claiming extraordinary circumstances, it said: "Upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve fault. Engineers attended the aircraft and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton by taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft from the Monarch fleet."
Just to repeat my flight was from Birimingham which was presumambly diverted to Luton to pick up those passengers, leaving us stranded.
Any advice welcome ...or do we just add this to the list of Monarch rejections?

111KAB

Lapduc wrote: »

Back from holiday to find rejection letter from Monarch re flight ZB3566 Luton to Rome 3rd April 2012 (I actually claimed for delays on ZB5408 from Birmingham to Rome!)
Claiming extraordinary circumstances, it said: "Upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve flight. Engineers attended the aircradt and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton by taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft from the Monarch fleet."
Just to repeat my flight was from Birimingham which was diverted to Luton to pick up those passengers, leaving us stranded.
Any advice welcome ...or do we just add this to the list of Monarch rejections?

Firstly save your letters as typically they show Monarch have not got a clue. Then decide if you want to walk away or submit a claim. Submission of a claim can be made by you or a no win no fee firm who will deduct a fee should they 'win' the case for you.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Firstly save your letters as typically they show Monarch have not got a clue. Then decide if you want to walk away or submit a claim. Submission of a claim can be made by you or a no win no fee firm who will deduct a fee should they 'win' the case for you.

If it weren't so disgraceful, it would actually be hilarious. You can only hope they fly the planes with more competence ...

LBD

I was on the Luton/Rome flight on the 03/04/2012 that is the reason I was given for rejection.

Lapduc wrote: »

Back from holiday to find rejection letter from Monarch re flight ZB3566 Luton to Rome 3rd April 2012 (I actually claimed for delays on ZB5408 from Birmingham to Rome!)....My advice is email Monarch back asking them to confirm the reason for the denial of your Birmingham to Rome...

I would also fill out the court paperwork and submit it, some prefer mcol....my preference is the N1 which I have done and submitted....:beer: