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

Karb

At last, an answer. And another to add to the extraordinary circumstances pile - an "auxiliary power unit fault" on a previous flight.

Dear Mr Karb (they actually used my first name, rather than my surname),

Re: Flight ZB978 Birmingham to Malaga on 19th August 2012

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

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 that was originally scheduled to operate your flight developed an auxiliary power unit fault upon arrival into Tenerife on a previous flight. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Due to the complexity of the problem and the logistics of obtaining and transporting the spare parts required to Tenerife, it was several days before the aircraft was declared serviceable.

As a consequence, your flight was unavoidably delayed, however, in order to reduce the delay, we arranged for the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet to operate your flight.

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.

Kind Regards
David Bulut
Monarch EU Claims Advisor
[EMAIL="customer.relations@monarch.co.uk"]euclaim@monarch.co.uk[/EMAIL]

mozzer1966

Its been bugging me about technical faults being a used as an EC whilst reading up on this issue i came accross this artical
PUBLISHED: 13:05, 9 December 2012
extract from piece in the mail online

''The CAA says that ‘extraordinary’ doesn’t have to mean a rare event, just something outside the airline’s control – such as severe weather, a strike or air traffic control issues.Airlines have tried, and will continue to try, to avoid paying compensation by naming just about any circumstance as extraordinary. A technical problem with an aircraft is often quoted as an example, but the CAA says that if such a problem ought to have been picked up during routine maintenance, then it is not acceptable to call that an extraordinary circumstance''


So how do they keep getting away with using this excuse???????

friendofbillw2

Vauban wrote: »

occasional stiffness in right hand

Off topic and very old, but for those who haven't seen it before I hope this gives you a bit of a laugh.

How many of these would be ECs?

Airplane maintenance

"Squawks" are problem listings that pilots generally leave for maintenance crews to fix before the next flight. Here are some squawks submitted by USAF pilots and the replies from the maintenance crews.

(P) = Problem (S) = Solution



(P) Left inside main tire almost needs replacement

(S) Almost replaced left inside main tire


(P) Test flight OK, except autoland very rough

(S) Autoland not installed on this aircraft


(P) #2 Propeller seeping prop fluid

(S) #2 Propeller seepage normal - #1 #3 and #4 propellers lack normal seepage


(P) Something loose in cockpit

(S) Something tightened in cockpit


(P) Evidence of leak on right main landing gear

(S) Evidence removed


(P) DME volume unbelievably loud

(S) DME volume set to more believable level


(P) Dead bugs on windshield

(S) Live bugs on back order


(P) Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent

(S) Cannot reproduce problem on ground


(P) IFF inoperative

(S) IFF always inoperative in OFF mode (IFF = Identification Friend or Foe)


(P) Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick

(S) That's what they're there for


(P) Number three engine missing

(S) Engine found under right wing after brief search

('missing' = misfiring)

(P) Aircraft handles funny

(S) Aircraft warned to straighten up and fly right


(P) Target Radar hums

(S) Reprogrammed Target Radar with lyrics

Eve4ever

urban469 wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, I have excellent news. I just received this from the court:



Centipede100, Mark2Spark and Vauban – group hug!

I'd like to say two things:

First, this implies that Monarch ARE admitting that an engine failure is NOT an exceptional circumstance, despite their repeated pre-court denials (yes, yes, I know their submission says "without admissions as to the merits of this case"). For full details of the circumstances of my delay, read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60112523#Comment_60112523

If this sounds like your delay, then you should take comfort from my win.

Mark, if you'd like to update the OP, this is my flight: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/59673851#Comment_59673851

And second, if you're on the fence about whether to follow through on your claim, DO IT.

Centipede100, Mark2Spark and Vauban, I'm indebted to you for this win.

Well done Urban. I too have submitted my response to their defense, which is the exact same excuse as yours. I'm awaiting the court date now, I assume you received the above from the court rather than a court date?

Ich_2

First, this implies that Monarch ARE admitting that an engine failure is NOT an exceptional circumstance,

Or is it that they are admitting it is not an EC in THIS case?

urban469

Eve4ever wrote: »

Well done Urban. I too have submitted my response to their defense, which is the exact same excuse as yours. I'm awaiting the court date now, I assume you received the above from the court rather than a court date?

Thanks!

You're almost right. I was at the stage where Monarch had to file their defence. In fact, their 'defence' was a single point - point number one was the full admission. And it was sent to me by Northampton County Court. (I think a court date is a couple more steps down the line – it would have been set after I filed my reply to their defence).

urban469

Ich wrote: »

Or is it that they are admitting it is not an EC in THIS case?

Yes, you're absolutely right. And also, note that their full admission stated that: "Without any admissions as to liability or to the merits of this case, the Defendant does not wish to dispute this claim and shall make full payment for the whole amount claimed." So actually, they are not admitting anything, they are just saying, we won't defend this case and we will pay the money you are asking for.

My point is one of extrapolation: they are not defending a case where engine failure was their sole explanation for the delay. They previously stated that this engine failure was an exceptional circumstance.

Now although:
(a) they haven't admitted anything in this case, and
(b) no precedent is set in the County Court,
this much is true: Monarch is paying out on a simple engine failure. So by paying out, Monarch's lawyers are acknowledging that they would be unlikely to win a case in court where engine failure led to a three hour delay. That is a very important point, and one that makes me very happy.

Eastway01

urban469 wrote: »

So actually, they are not admitting anything, they are just saying, we won't defend this case and we will pay the money you are asking for.

My point is one of extrapolation: they are not defending a case where engine failure was their sole explanation for the delay. They previously stated that this engine failure was an exceptional circumstance.

Now although:
(a) they haven't admitted anything in this case, and
(b) no precedent is set in the County Court,
this much is true: Monarch is paying out on a simple engine failure. So by paying out, Monarch's lawyers are acknowledging that they would be unlikely to win a case in court where engine failure led to a three hour delay. That is a very important point, and one that makes me very happy.

Or... they are just saying they can't be bothered to defend a claim for £251

friendofbillw2

urban469 wrote: »

Monarch is paying out on a simple engine failure.

I think it is important to note that in your particular circumstances, the delay was because of an engine failure 'in the fleet' having a knock on effect on you.

By paying out Monarch are effectively admitting that is unlikely to be held as 'Exceptional Circumstances'. They may have a different view as to whether an engine failure in the plane actually allocated to a claimant is ECs or not.

As more cases get settled or contested I suppose we'll begin to find out patterns in how they view each broad set of circumstances.

friendofbillw2

Eastway01 wrote: »

Or... they are just saying they can't be bothered to defend a claim for £251

Fair comment!