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

dawn1329

Can anyone Help please!

After finally receiving a reply from Monarch today, about our
51 HOUR delay on 18th August last year due to a 'technical fault' (I have a letter issued on our eventual return date stating this) , I am horrified and disgusted to report that they now say that the delay was 'caused by an extraordinary circumstance' and 'therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation' .

Please...where do I go from here?

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

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

Yes, Ich. I am pretty sure.

You perform a useful function on this forum, giving a more critical perspective from the airline/industry. But you are either naive or disingenous if you don't see the sleight of hand here.

Note the phrase "one of our aircraft", not - as usual - "the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight". What do you reckon the airline really mean by that?

Vauban

dawn1329 wrote: »

Can anyone Help please!

After finally receiving a reply from Monarch today, about our
51 HOUR delay on 18th August last year due to a 'technical fault' (I have a letter issued on our eventual return date stating this) , I am horrified and disgusted to report that they now say that the delay was 'caused by an extraordinary circumstance' and 'therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation' .

Please...where do I go from here?

Read the FAQs on page one.

Ich_2

from the airline/industry

of the airline industry - please

I am not now, never have and never will be employed in that industry! I just know a fair bit about what goes on within it!

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

of the airline industry - please

I am not now, never have and never will be employed in that industry! I just know a fair bit about what goes on within it!

I note and respect the distinction! And I think this forum is enriched by your perspective.

I don't resile from my point about the sleight of hand drafting. In my line of business, I recognise it all too well ...

Ich_2

The industry I do work in is well regulated and more often than not if the full complaint process/regulator route is not followed customers fail to get anywhere with claims.
There are also agreements in place between the industry and the regulator what can and cannot be acceptable (though we don't publish this information)

klint

Re Vauban vs. Ich, I can't decide which one is right, but I think that even if it was indeed kimmie45's aircraft that they dropped a boroscope plug into, it still sounds to me like a fob-off. How old was the boroscope, and how many times has it been used, for its plug to shear off and fall into the engine? I don't think negligence counts as exceptional circumstance.

Vauban

klint wrote: »

Re Vauban vs. Ich, I can't decide which one is right, but I think that even if it was indeed kimmie45's aircraft that they dropped a boroscope plug into, it still sounds to me like a fob-off. How old was the boroscope, and how many times has it been used, for its plug to shear off and fall into the engine? I don't think negligence counts as exceptional circumstance.

How are you gonna prove negligence? There is no evidence that the airline was negligent in this instance, as far as i can see. Mistakes happen. And why do you want to know how old the boroscope is? What if I said it was a year old? What if I said it was ten? What difference does it make?

If you go down the wrong rabbit holes, you don't catch the bunny.

Mark2spark

Ich, I also think that your forum contributions are useful, there seems little point in having most posters (like me) just immediately saying claim claim claim without looking into it a little more.
A more critical look over the circs is needed.
That's not to say that the airlines aren't lying though - I think in a lot of cases they are just saying anything in order to fob people off.

Ich_2

but I think that even if it was indeed kimmie45's aircraft that they dropped a boroscope plug into, it still sounds to me like a fob-off. How old was the boroscope, and how many times has it been used, for its plug to shear off and fall into the engine

The problem with that statement is that it is someway from reality as to what a Boroscope Plug actually is, or what a Boroscope does.

That's not to say that the airlines aren't lying though

I have made a comment elsewhere as to the airline approach to delay causes as announced at airports and often in flight. They are "careful" with the facts so as to not cause alarm.

immediately saying claim claim claim without looking into it a little more

As I see it the law as written was very poor and ill thought out, this has only been made far, far worse by the legal precedents that essentially give the airlines no room to manouver and will only eventually result in poorer conditions for passengers.
The changes for next year may re-dress the balance a bit but folk must understand that the airlines have not got endless pockets to support some of the stuff that is being asked of them.

So the chances of spares, engineers, spare aircraft, crew etc. at remote destinations is pretty much nil (as Virgin put it to one that is an intolerable sacrifice).
The availability of aircraft to "spot" hire is pretty much nil so that will generally be a no go. As I've said there is only one company in the UK could do that, most of their fleet is on long term hire to other airlines this year anyway.
Airlines do have spare aircraft & standby crew, but only so many, once they have gone they have gone. Their standby capability will be based on their normal day to day operations it is only the exceptional problems they cannot cover.
And face it, would you like to be a crew member sat at an airport with your bags not knowing where you may go, when you may be back and who is going to look after pets, children etc.? So staff will be on standby for a particular long haul destination and will have some idea how long they may be away, it is unfair to suddenly swap them to other destinations with longer lay-overs is it not?