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

What_todo

Thank you for that.
Just a quick question, did you mean Spanish or CAA or both?

I am taking this further and Intend doing it myself so want to make sure that I have covered every angle.

Thanks again.

Vauban

What_todo wrote: »

Thank you for that.
Just a quick question, did you mean Spanish or CAA or both?

I am taking this further and Intend doing it myself so want to make sure that I have covered every angle.

Thanks again.

Apologies - I realise my "them" was not clear. As the delay occured in Spanish jurisdiction, the CAA will say it is for the Spanish National Enforcement Body to deal. It is worth writing to the Spanish NEB, as Monarch won't engage with them (or haven't done up to now, apparently). It's something in your favour when you take it to Court.

alibythesea

Re: Flight ZB743 Malaga to London Gatwick on 14th October 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 on 13th October 2012 an aircraft within the Monarch fleet developed an air bleed leak in the left hand side wing duct, between the engine and fuselage, which rendered the aircraft inoperable and requiring unscheduled maintenance in the aircraft hangar. Engineers were able to rectify the fault in order for the aircraft to operate the London Gatwick to Sharm El Sheik flight on 13th October, albeit with a delay.

However upon arrival in Sharm El Sheik the operating crew exceeded their legal flying hours as a result of the technical fault and consequent engineering work and were required to have the requisite hours of minimum rest. This led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of the inbound Sharm El Sheik to London Gatwick flight, which operated at the earliest opportunity the following day, 14th October. This in turn meant that the aircraft was not in position to operate the subsequent flight from London Gatwick.

In order to reduce further delay times and recover the operating schedule, the decision was made to operate this flight on the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight from Malaga to London Gatwick. As a result, this unfortunately led to a delay to your flight which was then operated on the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet.

It was also unfortunate that despite Monarch’s best efforts there was no availability to transfer passengers to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator.

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.


Yours sincerely,

EU Claim Team
Monarch Airlines

This is the email that I received a few minutes ago. At the time we were told that a larger plane was needed because of overbooking and that this was the norm for a weekend Malaga to Gatwick flight at that time! Not sure what to do now. Any advice appreciated. It doesn't look like EC to me.

urban469

alibythesea wrote: »

Re: Flight ZB743 Malaga to London Gatwick on 14th October 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 on 13th October 2012 an aircraft within the Monarch fleet developed an air bleed leak in the left hand side wing duct, between the engine and fuselage, which rendered the aircraft inoperable and requiring unscheduled maintenance in the aircraft hangar. Engineers were able to rectify the fault in order for the aircraft to operate the London Gatwick to Sharm El Sheik flight on 13th October, albeit with a delay.

However upon arrival in Sharm El Sheik the operating crew exceeded their legal flying hours as a result of the technical fault and consequent engineering work and were required to have the requisite hours of minimum rest. This led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of the inbound Sharm El Sheik to London Gatwick flight, which operated at the earliest opportunity the following day, 14th October. This in turn meant that the aircraft was not in position to operate the subsequent flight from London Gatwick.

In order to reduce further delay times and recover the operating schedule, the decision was made to operate this flight on the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight from Malaga to London Gatwick. As a result, this unfortunately led to a delay to your flight which was then operated on the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet.

It was also unfortunate that despite Monarch’s best efforts there was no availability to transfer passengers to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator.

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.


Yours sincerely,

EU Claim Team
Monarch Airlines

This is the email that I received a few minutes ago. At the time we were told that a larger plane was needed because of overbooking and that this was the norm for a weekend Malaga to Gatwick flight at that time! Not sure what to do now. Any advice appreciated. It doesn't look like EC to me.

It's a technical fault that is very unlikely to be seen by a judge as an EC in my opinion. Don't worry about multiple excuses. That's for Monarch to decide which story they want to tell and if they're lying in court, that's perjury. Next step: NBA. Then in 14 days, MCOL (unless they pay up by then).

MandD

Has anyone had any success with compensation for this flight, so far we have been told the technical fault was a safety issue and therefore beyond their control.

suelees1

MandD wrote: »

...the technical fault was a safety issue....

It's just another stock phrase they use to hopefully make you think "oh good old Monarch making passenger safety paramount"

Ich_2

Can I suggest that folk would need to be a qualified aircraft engineer to decide if an issue is a Technical Fault or a Safety issue!
Many faults that are discussed on here make it illegal for the aircraft to fly and could have catastrophic results if it did!

Adie_Cartwright

Hi, I've been viewing the forum with much interest for quite some time now, and have become more and more determined to fight Monarch for what I believe is legally mine.
Myself and 5 friends were subjected to a seven hour delay on zb534 Man - Pmi on 30/09/2012. My initial letter of claim was met by a Monarch insistance that each member individually sent in an official Monarch claim form. After submitting the forms we were informed that we were not entitled to anything as there was an EC (Namely a wing flap deflector panel shearing) - one of our party was given a completely different reason, but it soon became clear that Monarchs appalling level of competence had resulted in them mistakenly quoting a completely different flight.
A bit of digging around this site provided evidence that the breakdown had occured approximately 24 hours prior to our scheduled departure, and the plane involved had not only been repaired and arrived in Manchester several hours earlier than our departure, but had then been flown out to the Greek Islands to complete two further sectors before arriving back with us several hours late.
I then issued them with a NBA asking them to provide details of all operations of the aircraft on that day, plus evidence that they had sought alternative aircraft from other companies (As they said they had). They replied with a standard letter basically saying they stand by their decision, and offered no further information.
I now intend to go through MCOL, but have a few questions first:

1) Would it be better to proceed as a group, or make my individual claim the first as it would be cheaper, and hope that any success would be a precedent that could then be followed up by the other 5 in the group?

2) Is there anyone else out there attempting to claim for the same flight that can swap info etc with me?

3) I've registered with Government Gateway to set the ball rolling. is it a simple enough process from hereon, and is there anything I should bear in mind?

As an aside, the return flight (zb535 pmi - man 7/10/2012) was also delayed almost 7 hours due to a knock on effect of a delay on the outgoing zb534 flight (Delaminated fan cowl). I would appreciate any info on events leading up to this flight please, and also a further delay on zb534 to Palma on 27th Sept 2009 which was six hours late after a catalogue of ridiculous events including multiple breakdowns, crews out of hours, and having to wait for a Vulcan Bomber to do a flypast of the airport.

Any information on any of these would be extremely gratefully received, as I, like most on this forum am incensed at monarchs attitude to their legal obligations, and would dearly love to take them to the cleaners, particularly as I have successfully received 1800 euros (With partner and child) from EasyJet recently without quibble for a delay from Sharm last November.

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Can I suggest that folk would need to be a qualified aircraft engineer to decide if an issue is a Technical Fault or a Safety issue!
Many faults that are discussed on here make it illegal for the aircraft to fly and could have catastrophic results if it did!

I don't understand your point, Ich. No one believes that airlines should fly defective planes. Indeed, I don't think you need to be an engineer to understand that flying a defective plane would be A Bad Idea. But that's not what is being argued.

The point is that airlines need to have the systems in place so that they can resolve the impact of a technical or other problem (within their control) that causes a delay. They may not like this - it's easier and cheaper to make passengers just wait, after all - but it is the law. If you doubt this fact, the Wallentin judgment is pretty clear:

Although the Community legislature included in that list ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin.

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.

Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

urban469

Ich wrote: »

Can I suggest that folk would need to be a qualified aircraft engineer to decide if an issue is a Technical Fault or a Safety issue!
Many faults that are discussed on here make it illegal for the aircraft to fly and could have catastrophic results if it did!

The 'safety issue' defence is a typical Monarch red herring designed to muddy the waters. Unless it's an exceptional circumstance (for example, if the manufacturer withdraws all models of a particular type of aircraft worldwide), Monarch is unlikely to win in court.

Even if an aircraft is grounded on safety concerns, the airline will have to prove that it did everything short of an 'unreasonable burden' to avoid the delay. That means transferring passengers to other airlines, that means wet leasing another aircraft, that means getting buying parts from other airlines based at the airport. And I stress, it is for Monarch to prove they did all of this.