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

princeofpounds

I booked tickets in a monarch flight to Germany in June several weeks ago.

They have now emailed to say they are going to cancel the flight for unspecified 'commercial reasons'

Do I have any rights at all? Most guides seem to assume a cancellation at the airport. This is months in advance.

But it is going to cost us, not only because the replacement flight will be booked later, but also because we will have to change our hotel plans and that means cancellation charges.

Any thoughts?

Ich_2

As long as they have told you more than 2 weeks prior to the flight you have no real come back. They do have to refund all your payments.

I have seen elsewhere that KLM & BA can actually do the route cheaper anyway!

Vauban

princeofpounds wrote: »

I booked tickets in a monarch flight to Germany in June several weeks ago.

They have now emailed to say they are going to cancel the flight for unspecified 'commercial reasons'

Do I have any rights at all? Most guides seem to assume a cancellation at the airport. This is months in advance.

But it is going to cost us, not only because the replacement flight will be booked later, but also because we will have to change our hotel plans and that means cancellation charges.

Any thoughts?

Regrettably, you have no recourse under 261/04 - airlines are allowed to do this. But I can understand the anger of the many people who now have to rebook on other airlines, and a great expense.

Here's my lesson, already learned from a 24 hour delay in Sharm (and subsequent shenanigans): Never Fly Monarch.

Ich_2

They have actually cancelled all flights from the UK to that destination

Busywoman_2

Had this reply today from Monarch....3rd April 2013


As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an 'extraordinary circumstance' which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight had to stop in Cairo in order to refuel, this is due to the aircraft not being able to carry the full amount of fuel to get to Sharm El Sheik directly due the headwinds that day. Unfortunately whilst in Cairo, the aircraft developed a fault with the spoiler. An engineer was called out to the aircraft to assess the problem. He was able to rectify the problem, but due the length of time the crew did not have the hours in order to fly the aircraft on to Sharm El Sheik. Therefore, we had to nightstop the aircraft in Cairo in order to let the crew have minimum rest and operate the remainder of the flight the next day.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.
..........

This is factually incorrect. We did fly into Cairo for fuel and developed a brake failure (spoiler?). We actually sat in the aircraft on the tarmac for SEVEN hours - with one drink of water. We then carried on with our flight to Sharm - therefore not in Cairo overnight!! Arrriving at 0130 in morning.:mad: Totally incorrect.

What do we do now!!!!!

Please advise Many thanks.

Ich_2

Though the result was unacceptable the cause was true and could be seen as an EC.

Vauban

Busywoman wrote: »

Had this reply today from Monarch....3rd April 2013


As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an 'extraordinary circumstance' which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight had to stop in Cairo in order to refuel, this is due to the aircraft not being able to carry the full amount of fuel to get to Sharm El Sheik directly due the headwinds that day. Unfortunately whilst in Cairo, the aircraft developed a fault with the spoiler. An engineer was called out to the aircraft to assess the problem. He was able to rectify the problem, but due the length of time the crew did not have the hours in order to fly the aircraft on to Sharm El Sheik. Therefore, we had to nightstop the aircraft in Cairo in order to let the crew have minimum rest and operate the remainder of the flight the next day.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.
..........

This is factually incorrect. We did fly into Cairo for fuel and developed a brake failure (spoiler?). We actually sat in the aircraft on the tarmac for SEVEN hours - with one drink of water. We then carried on with our flight to Sharm - therefore not in Cairo overnight!! Arrriving at 0130 in morning.:mad: Totally incorrect.

What do we do now!!!!!

Please advise Many thanks.

You go to court, and you tear them apart.:D

dollydaydreamer

Thanks KAB111 & Vauban i'll send off a NBA tomorrow.

Cant believe how useless monarch are. Their first reply to me a month ago was for a completely different flight from in Feb 2010 instead of mine in Dec. I dont think they actually read the claim forms that are sent in. But i guess that along with the latest reply i've had will all help with my case.

Will post back any reply i have.

Mark2spark

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Oh god thats the last thing i need. The are gonna now just start blaming each other like ping pong now arent they

IMO you are in for the long haul on this one. So you have to attack from all angles.
Contact the CAA and see if you can get a positive from them as to whom the claim lies against.
Contact Monarch - by letter and not filling in their claim form - and see if they are taking responsibility for operation of the flight. If so, then yes, the claim is against them.
In the meantime you might consider the £30 application fee for a small claim (MCOL) to be worth losing, and get a claim in against Thomson, who, by *having* to file a defence, will reveal a lot more info (speedily I mean).
In the absence of a CAA reply, and a virtually certain washing of hands from Monarch, then getting the case before a Judge - and a ruling on who is the airline to claim against - seems the ultimate course. Judge will either rule it is Thomson, and then your case will be found, or Monarch, in which case you will have a Court Order that they can't ignore.
But this is going to take months, be clear on it.

Mark2spark

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

The flood gates will open as soon as some of these cases get through the slow court processes and get to hearing and judgement.

Whilst I would agree that no flood gates will open, due to the exchange of info on this forum, and elsewhere on the internet, then for some flights, a claim will have been found against Monarch, which could then be used by a secondary claimant, ie DJ Smith In Sunnytown County Court has already found that no EC's exist on flight no blah on date etc etc and ruled against Monarch's defence.

But I agree with the broadness of the statement. Even with the two Wallentin and Sturgeon rulings, Monarch are still claiming EC's for tech issues, and until the CAA start instigating fines against the airline, then they will continue to defend undefendable cases.