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

suelees1

I'm losing the will to live...........

Mark2spark

Sheriffphil wrote: »

hi Mark2spark. Both were return flights from Gran Canaria same flight number but different dates.
CAA website says each country should have an EB to deal with 261 but can't find an email address for the Spanish one. I'm struggling a bit now will give CAA a ring later today. Both were evening/night flights and it wasn't much fun stuck in an airport with a small child with a 5 euro voucher each when everything closed at midnight !!

My bad phil, I didn't look properly and assumed it was out and return flights of a holiday. I saw the different dates but the year didn't register.
Centipede has provided the Spanish NEB contact details, but I can guarantee you that what will happen is that they will write to Monarch, Monarch won't reply, and 30 days later the Spanish NEB will write back and say Monarch have failed to provide a valid EC defence so we find in your favour.
Which leaves you back at square one.
Court time my friend.

klint

Mark2spark wrote: »

Guys, I'm not convinced that adding flights to the denied list serves any purpose any longer?
Flights paid out on I can see is useful info.
Anything else is going to be EC according to Monarch?

Hi Mark,

I think the value of listing denied flights is in cases where they give different reasons for delay on the same flight. I think this has already been shown to have happened at least once on this forum, and it shows that Monarch are lying. It would be good ammunition in court.

wytangel

kecat wrote: »

I love how they are using one problem on one flight to cover several different flights on the same day, I was on the 3rd flight ZB248 which although you say they used the plane from the other flight this is not true, we got on the plane that eventually came back from Sharm some 7 hours after we were due to depart.

I was a bit slow with sending my NBA but I did so a few weeks ago and their deadline for replying to me was last week whilst I was away on holiday (not flying with Monarch might I add). I still have not received a response so will be issuing my claim for this week, so its off to court we go as well...

ZB248 LGW/SSH on 14Oct2012 scheduled 10.10, departed 16.24.
ZB742 LGW/AGP on 14Oct2012 scheduled 15.25, departed 20.02.
Monarch's response to both alibythesea and myself states of ZB248 "the decision was made to operate this flight on the aircraft originally scheduled your flight from London Gatwick to Malaga" (i.e. ZB742).
We were also told this by desk staff in response to heated objections about the delay. How certain are you that your ZB248 flight used the plane/crew from the delayed returning flight ZB247?

Sheriffphil

Cheers centipede, papers are in the post on their way to Madrid. Will keep you all posted. Thanks. The Sheriff.

kimmie45

Hi all

I have been watching this forum so thought I would add my outcome to the list of fails arrived in an email within the 14 days stipulated in my letter to them. We were delayed 5 hours and lost first day of our holiday.Does this look legit or another fob off?
!:mad:

Good luck to everyone else.....is there anything I can do? Thanks in advance for any advice. kimmie45

Re: MON7014 Gatwick to Rhodes on!31st August 2011


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 whilst one of our aircraft was undergoing a planned boroscope inspection, the boroscope plug sheared off during removal and fell inside the engine. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate. Arrangements were made for a working party from Rolls Royce to attend the aircraft to remove the plug.


As a consequence, your departure was unavoidably delayed. However, in order to reduce the delay and minimise the disruption, we transferred passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet and your flight departed at the earliest opportunity once the replacement aircraft had completed its previous flying commitments.


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,



NoticeThink before you print - do you really need to print this e-mail?This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It must not be used by, or its contents copied or disclosed to persons other than the intended recipient. Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded.

WarningIt is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. Please carry out such virus and other checks as you consider appropriate. No responsibility is accepted by the Monarch Group of Companies in this regard.

kimmie45

Thank you.. my fav bit of the email is the comment about Rolls Royce stampeding to the rescue...lol ...v.funny. When we were at the airport the check in staff told us the flight was delayed due to a major accident on the motorway.....which one was telling the truth I wonder.

What should I do next? I am up for the fight....

Vauban

kimmie45 wrote: »

Thank you.. my fav bit of the email is the comment about Rolls Royce stampeding to the rescue...lol ...v.funny. When we were at the airport the check in staff told us the flight was delayed due to a major accident on the motorway.....which one was telling the truth I wonder.

What should I do next? I am up for the fight....

Forget the motorway thing - it's now hearsay.

But as Centipede observes, IT WAS NOT EVEN YOUR AIRCRAFT!!! Take them to court - I'd be very, very surprised if they defended.

Ich_2

As a consequence, your departure was unavoidably delayed. However, in order to reduce the delay and minimise the disruption, we transferred passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet and your flight departed at the earliest opportunity once the replacement aircraft had completed its previous flying commitments.

IT WAS NOT EVEN YOUR AIRCRAFT

You sure? My understanding of that paragraph is different to yours!

Ich_2

Forget the motorway thing - it's now hearsay.

Having discussed this at length elsewhere and some years ago, it is worth pointing out.
1/ Ground staff often have little more idea than you what the problem actually is, so often will give non-committal reasons
2/ If it is something that could affect the safety of the flight they will never tell you this immediately before or during the flight. (even if it has been repaired) The risk of bad reactions from nervous flyers are too great the airlines feel. So often, everything is described as a tech problem, even though it may be something else (and it sounds good and knowledgeable to ground staff).

So whatever you heard on the day from whoever you heard it, take it with a pinch of salt!

Read this and compare the report from the crew in the first paragraph, to the official statement from the airline in the last!

http://avherald.com/h?article=4619d5aa&opt=0

(It was a faulty IFE unit BTW, a type of fault that did once bring aircraft down with the loss of all those on-board)