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

Karb

Mark2spark wrote: »

. But you DO have to provide some evidence of purchasing the flight.
I take it you done that (supply photocopies) with your original letter? If not, there's no harm in sending the filled out claim form back, with the applicable documentation, accompanied by a 14 day deadline in an NBA.

I sent a copy of the booking confirmation e-mail which had all the flight details, passenger names and seat reservations, and a copy of the e-mail that Monarch sent apologising for the delay.

Vauban

Karb wrote: »

I sent a copy of the booking confirmation e-mail which had all the flight details, passenger names and seat reservations, and a copy of the e-mail that Monarch sent apologising for the delay.

The booking confirmation email is ample.

ang216bc

It would appear that MONR, the plane that we were delayed on, has been withdrawn from service and scrapped.(Jan 2013)

It was 21 years old. Past it's sell by date?????

Reemas

Vauban wrote: »

I have now received Monarch's legal defence to my action. My flight from Sharm to Gatwick was delayed by over 24 hours when the previous flight (from Gatwick) was discovered to have cracks in the windscreen.

This is what Monarch says:



I'd welcome thoughts - either here or via PM.

Been away for a bit but keeping up with the thread as much as possible.

Just received my first defence submitted by Monarch which is very similar to that above apart from the fault reason. As I expected they are again trying to scare us off from continuing the claim, but I am determined.
Just one question, and sorry if it has already been answered, but can we claim expenses in relation to lost work hours and travel when we win the case!
Thanks all, and lets keep taking them on.

111KAB

Reemas wrote: »

Just one question, and sorry if it has already been answered, but can we claim expenses in relation to lost work hours and travel when we win the case!
Thanks all, and lets keep taking them on.

No you can only claim for relevant compensation and 8% interest charge thereon from date of delay. You can also request consideration for both attending the court (normally c. £50) and travelling expenses.

Reemas

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 was also confused by this point on their defence to my claim.

However, does this mean that if I bought another ticket with another airline due to the delay and did not actually take the delayed flight, I cannot claim.

Vauban

Reemas wrote: »

I was also confused by this point on their defence to my claim.

However, does this mean that if I bought another ticket with another airline due to the delay and did not actually take the delayed flight, I cannot claim.

Hmm not sure.

If the delay is over 5 hours, you can get a full refund as well as compensation - even if you choose not to fly.

If the delay is less than 3 hours, you get nowt.

So if the delay is between 3-5 hours, and you choose not to fly ... I don't know whether you are eligible for the compensation or not! One for the real experts, perhaps.

Reemas

Ich wrote: »

Reasonable is one of those great words that get included but not defined, the closes would be the term "reasonably practicable" as often used in H&S law and is defined.
Many folk talk about having a replacement aircraft, so at a main base is 3 hours enough to change aircraft if a defect is noticed at the last minute. Yes it can be done but is it reasonable to take staff off other aircraft (loaders etc) and delay them.
If there isn't a spare there is 3 hours reasonable to get one?
Is it reasonable to expect an airline to have expensive spare parts at every place an airline flies too along with spare aircraft and crews.

It seems that the CAA has suggested (if what the airlines say is correct) that a defect immediately before or during a flight is reasonable to be accepted as an EC, I would agree!

Part of the ruling in the Alitalia case was that the defect had been known about the previous night and that the airline could not show it had done enough to correct the situation for a flight the following morning by the use of it's resources, a reasonable ruling but accepting that there may be a time element.

You have made a number of points about what is 'reasonable' to expect from an airline company in relation to technical faults which is all fairly subjective. Therefore on the flips side how 'reasonable' is it for an airline to operate a flight that squeezes its schedule to such an extent that it results in 8 three hour plus delays in 10 consecutive sundays.

Ich_2

Therefore on the flips side how 'reasonable' is it for an airline to operate a flight that squeezes its schedule to such an extent that it results in 8 three hour plus delays in 10 consecutive sundays.

And that is the sort of practice I understand the legislation was probably intended to deal with as it is unacceptable.

Vauban

Reemas wrote: »

You have made a number of points about what is 'reasonable' to expect from an airline company in relation to technical faults which is all fairly subjective. Therefore on the flips side how 'reasonable' is it for an airline to operate a flight that squeezes its schedule to such an extent that it results in 8 three hour plus delays in 10 consecutive sundays.

Reemas,

You'll see I replied to Ich point on reasonableness - as the Wallentin ruling addresses it directly (and sets a very high bar - the airlines must respond to a problem, even ECs, with everything short of "intolerable sacrifice").

On your weather point, weather is only an EC if it affects your flight directly. The regulation (261/04) speaks directly to this: "meteorological conditions incompatible with the flight concerned", or something. Knock on weather effects don't count.

Vauban