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

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

I used to have a boroscope but the wheels came off:rotfl:

I have some sympathy with some the points Ich makes about the law, and the heavy responsibility it places on airlines (or at least those that observe its provision). I think the revised proposals are generally good, in my view. But:

The law is the law is the law. Whilst it is legitimate to lobby against it, to decry it as unreasonable and unworkable, it is not acceptable to flout it or to misrepresent it to consumers. That is what a number of airlines are doing, and it cannot be justified. Indeed it is shameful.

And my second point is that, if these provisions are onerous, it is largely because the EU sets out to provide a very high level of passenger protection. And we deserve it. Too often passenger convenience is not prioritised over cost: and it should be.

In my case, I ask anyone here if they think it was reasonable for me to have been delayed for over 24 hours - for a flight of just over 5 hours' duration - because one of Monarch's aircraft apparently went tech in Gatwick? We were shunted to a cheap hotel because that was the most cost effective thing Monarch could do. It wasn't in my best interests, however, and it is therefore absolutely appropriate that I am compensated for the significant inconvenience this failure caused me.

Is that unreasonable?

Ich_2

That the airlines needed to get better at looking after the customer during disruption is not disputed and from the inside views I know of they do try to do their best (believe it or not)

Where I think they get let down is often by the handling companies who have put the lowest bid in and often fail to deliver (don't start me about our contractors at work!!!)

We were shunted to a cheap hotel because that was the most cost effective thing Monarch could do

Do you know this or is that your view?
Look at it from another way, how easy do you think it really is to find a hundred rooms or more that are close together and near the airport at very short notice? Not forgetting the transport and trying to get the hotels or airport establishments to provide food if late at night.
Or should the airlines permanently have them available or own their own hotels? Should they all have staff on standby to feed passengers "just in case"?

I and they understand the difficulties passengers face, but seriously, think through what is needed, think through that the airlines, like passengers, can ask for the moon; but hotels etc. don't have to provide it!!

Too often passenger convenience is not prioritised over cost:

IMO the present compensation regime could make this even worse!
Once the time limit is breeched the airlines know they will have to, potentially, pay a certain cost per passenger on the affected flight(s) (and however long the delay that is all they must pay). The cynic would say that if this is the case why then should they pay out for food & accomodation and/or the hire of another aircraft.
Far better to take the costs on the chin, not disrupt other passengers by shuffling aircraft around the fleet to try to keep everyone moving.
Of course if they can avod paying the compensation .....

I think the EU possibly understood this when the law was first written, but of course the courts have changed all that.

stillinsharm

Monarch have refused my wife and I compensation for a 47 hour delay - Sharm El Sheik to LGW on 25/5/2008 - Flight MON(ZB) 5279. This was due to not one but two faults with the plane.
Anybody else tried for compensation relating to this flight?

kimmie45

I appreciate everyones views on my post but what would you do in my case? Is the only option small claims or am I entitled to ask Monarch to be more precise in their explanation and how exactly it affected my plane and not another. What would you do? The email is not clear and explanation feels wooly...if they said the boroscope dropped in my plane fair enough but it seems it was in another.......compared to some other explanations I have seen this one is the weirdest

Thank you

Ich_2

Just so you know, a Boroscope is used to inspect the internals of an engine for damage or wear. A Boroscope plug is a plug situated on the engine that is removed to allow access.
Looks like they dropped one into other internal parts of the engine that they needed specialist help to retrieve (often engines do not belong to the airline but are leased from, say, RR. So any major work would need to be done by RR trained staff)
The motorway accident may have delayed their arrival

lisafoster

Monarch refusing to pay compensation claims is being covered on BBC Watchdog next Wednesday. It should make interesting viewing

NicksTheMan

lisafoster wrote: »

Monarch refusing to pay compensation claims is being covered on BBC Watchdog next Wednesday. It should make interesting viewing

Not sure where you got the information from but am sure you are correct. Are they specifically covering just Monarch or including all airlines do you know. I am sure it will be interesting and at worst, unless Monarch comes up with a very good case, the bad publicity may have an adverse effect on their business. Is there the slightest possibly they Monarch will rethink their strategy before the programme is aired!!!

Reemas

I know this has been asked but can't find the post.
I have a standard refusal due to structural damage from being hit by a baggage loading truck (3rd party!). Are monarch still liable and is this EC?
I also had another 6 hour delay where I went to the airport and then decided to change my flight to the next available monarch flight. Monarch have wrote to say I am not coved by the regulations as I 'off-loaded' myself. Is monarch still liable to pay compensation?
Thanks

Magic_Moments

lisafoster wrote: »

Monarch refusing to pay compensation claims is being covered on BBC Watchdog next Wednesday. It should make interesting viewing

The best we can hope for as a result is that the bad publicity Monarch will receive may have some positive effect on some issues. I would imagine they may find a way of settling the claims featured/highlighted on the Watchdog programme but leave the rest of back at "Square One"

ap823

First of all many thanks to this web site and all the forum participants, without the information here I would not have known how to claim for the delayed flight. Keep up the good work!

My case started with Monarch declining the claim citing extraordinary circumstances and then after being contacted by Spanish regulator AESA changing their mind. I have now received the €400.00 x 4 compensation from Monarch. The full sequence of events and details are below.

Before I started the Monarch battle, I already have claimed for the 4 hours delay on the Austrian Airlines flight 456 from London Heathrow to Vienna (VIE) on Aug 29 2012. The plane had a problem with one of the wheels on the landing gear and we were put on the next aircraft four hours late. I have submitted my request on Nov 8 2012 though a generic feedback form on their web site and within 14 days received a response by email

Your flight was delayed due to technical reasons. Please be informed that according to the EC Regulation 261/04, passengers are not entitled to receive a financial compensation in case of short term delays due to extraordinary circumstances like this.
As I can understand the frustration about the situation I will compensate you 250 Euros anyway.

I wish every airline was handling compensation requests like Austrian Airlines did (actually I am not sure if they are right saying that these technical reasons constituted extraordinary circumstances, but I got the full compensation with no hassle)

Now, for those who are interested, details of my Monarch case:

Nov 3 2009 Monarch flight ZB 239 from Lanzarote (ACE) to London Gatwick delayed by four hours.

Just before boarding the flight is delayed with minimal information provided. We finally boarded 4 hours late and the pilot explained that the plane was subject to unscheduled inspection which found two burnt out lights on one of the exit signs (out of total ten lights on this sign). The rules consider it not safe to have more than one light off per sign and the plane was grounded. As Monarch did not have correct spare bulb on board, they had to fly an engineer with a replacement bulb (we indeed saw another Monarch plane arrive with only one chap with a tool case getting off it). The captain was quite annoyed on how unreasonably pedantic this unscheduled inspection was and blamed them for all the inconvenience caused to passengers. We have arrived to London about four hours late because Monarch did not have a correct spare bulb on board.

Dec 7 2012 I completed Monarch claim forms and emailed everything with copies of original booking email and passport scans to EUClaim@monarch.co.uk.

Jan 25 2013 in the absence of response from Monarch, completed EU Claim Form (in English) and posted to Spanish regulator AESA in Madrid together with copies of my communication with Monarch

Feb 18 2013 got a response from Monarch by post citing extraordinary circumstances:

Our records show upon arrival into Arrecife, a fault was found with the emergency lighting which for safety reasons had to be rectified before the aircraft could depart. We made arrangements for one of our engineers and the spare parts required, to be flown in from Tenerife. Your flight then departed at the earliest opportunity once the aircraft was declared serviceable.

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.

I have forwarded a scan of Monarch response to AESA by email (sau.aesa@seguridadaerea.es) with a cover note drafted in Spanish asking if they feel the airline has provided enough evidence that this sort of fault is an extraordinary circumstance. Same day response from AESA by email:

Agradecemos la informaci!n que nos ha remitido. Por nuestra parte, indicarle que todav!a no se han recibido las alegaciones o pruebas por parte de la compañ!a.

April 5 2013 all of a sudden email from Monarch changing their position:

Thank you for your correspondence which we have received via AESA.
Please accept my apologies for the dissatisfaction you have registered in light of the decision made regarding your claim for compensation in accordance with EC261/2004.
I can confirm that, following your correspondence, your claim has been reviewed by our legal team and they have since confirmed that you are entitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due to your delay.
In line with the above a cheque to the value of £1360.00 (the Sterling equivalent of €400.00 x 4 passengers based on today’s Reuters exchange rate) will be forwarded to you within twenty one working days.

May 1 2013 a £1360 check arrives by post, time for a celebration!!!:T

Based on this experience I would encourage writing to national regulator after receiving a rejection from the airline. In my case this was enough for Monarch to change their position; I did not have to start court proceedings.