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

Winton_Girl

Ich wrote: »

Just thinking this through a bit, the windscreen is designed to cope with the conditions it will encounter in normal use and flight, it is not designed to fail in anyway.
So it could be said that it is extraordinary when it does.

Though the frequency of failures is another matter!

You would think Autoglass are missing a gap in the market as Monarch aircraft do seem to have a bit of a problem !

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Just thinking this through a bit, the windscreen is designed to cope with the conditions it will encounter in normal use and flight, it is not designed to fail in anyway.
So it could be said that it is extraordinary when it does.

Though the frequency of failures is another matter!

Let's think through that statement a bit more: what piece of airline equipment is designed to fail? Clearly none. But they do. Frequently, and as part of the normal business of operations.

But let us refer to St. Wallentin, chapter 24 verse 1:

"In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity."

Sounds pretty compelling to me. But push back if you disagree.

Vauban

richardw wrote: »

Monarch do read this, so perhaps delete that post if you don't want them to know what you're thinking re post 1307.

With respect to RichardAli, his questions are hardly surprising and worth keeping from Monarch as a secret weapon. They are precisely the questions that anyone in his situation should ask of the airline. Monarch are not going to be wrong-footed. But I doubt they can give convincing answers: and that's why they are on a hiding to nothing ...

Ich_2

The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity."

Now that is interesting as all maintenance follows approved by the regulator schemes. I think that though the court cases seem clear they are not as black and white as the lay-man may think.

The biggest issue I see is not with the actual failure but the resolution of those failures that the Article was meant to address (and in my opinion the courts have muddied)

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Now that is interesting as all maintenance follows approved by the regulator schemes. I think that though the court cases seem clear they are not as black and white as the lay-man may think.

The biggest issue I see is not with the actual failure but the resolution of those failures that the Article was meant to address (and in my opinion the courts have muddied)

I agree that Wallentin sets a test about how the airlines respond to these set-backs, even issues that you might think of as initially extraordinary. As St. Wallentin chapter 39 says:

"It must be observed that the Community legislature intended to confer exemption from the obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of cancellation [and - post Sturgeon - delay] of flights not in respect of all extraordinary circumstances, but only in respect of those which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken."

So how does the court determine what constitutes "reasonable measures"? Actually, they set the bar really very high:

"It follows that, since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish, in addition, that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned."

And here's the killer bit:

"That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight."

What falls short of "intolerable sacrifices"? Almost everything, including chartering a new flight or having another on standby I would argue.

Ich_2

What falls short of "intolerable sacrifices"? Almost everything, including chartering a new flight or having another on standby I would argue.

I would agree which puts the airlines on a hiding to nothing, which IMO is not in the interests of the customer.
Given that situation it means for flights that go into the "compensation payment stage" it is actually pointless for the airline to go to the costs of further resources to redeem the situation other than fix the aircraft.
It is going to cost them £x for the compensation, why pay out more for accommodation, aircraft hire etc. And sadly it is court decisions that have put them in this situation!

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

I would agree which puts the airlines on a hiding to nothing, which IMO is not in the interests of the customer.
Given that situation it means for flights that go into the "compensation payment stage" it is actually pointless for the airline to go to the costs of further resources to redeem the situation other than fix the aircraft.
It is going to cost them £x for the compensation, why pay out more for accommodation, aircraft hire etc. And sadly it is court decisions that have put them in this situation!

Well now you are arguing a different point, Herr Ich.

I don't have a view on the point you make, except to say that airlines are sticklers when it comes to their own terms and conditions. So I feel no compunction about insisting that they stick to the law of the realm. And the attempts by Monarch - and a few others - to frustrate the legal rights of their passengers deserve nothing but contempt. And a great big smacking in our courts of law!:T

Ich_2

I'll give you that!

Mark2spark

Some good thrashing out of points today guys, well done.

Eve, the Wallentin-Hermann link is in the FAQ's, and completely backs your case up. They would NOT be offering you an out of court settlement if they were confident of winning.

PaulPonting

It is interesting to see from Mark's list the number of claims that have been denied to Rudder Faults. It view of the number of times this happens it is suprising bthat spare parts are not readily available!!!!. This type of fault seems to come only second to cracked windscreens