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

Vauban

I have put a link to the Guardian article on Monarch's Facebook page. I wonder if they'll take it down?

111KAB

There is also a Mail article re Monarch you can comment on .... see ....

http://pitcherblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/11/an-open-letter-to-fabio-mantegazza-owner-of-monarch-airlines-from-one-passenger-who-can-answer-back.html

The Mantegazza family are the main shareholders/owners of Monarch Airlines Limited.

Vauban

mbyrne01 wrote: »

Monarch don't think that this is the case and have rejected my claim as out of the ordinary ... I'm now going to take this to the CAA and small claims court.

Good for you - what a pathetic excuse.

I too would be interested in when you wrote to Monarch - and did you complete their claim form, as requested? It's quite an achievement to have had a response at all - even a predictable "no".

Well folks it looks like, if Monarch aren't paying out on straightforward issues like this, they're not going to play nice. So it's Court or fold for all of us, as we sort of knew it would have to be.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

There is also a Mail article re Monarch you can comment on .... see ....

http://pitcherblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/11/an-open-letter-to-fabio-mantegazza-owner-of-monarch-airlines-from-one-passenger-who-can-answer-back.html

The Mantegazza family are the main shareholders/owners of Monarch Airlines Limited.

Thanks for flagging that - I have left a comment. Perhaps someone else can put this link of Monarch's
Facebook page? (lest I look like a one-man obsessive!)

glentoran99

Vauban wrote: »

Good for you - what a pathetic excuse.

I too would be interested in when you wrote to Monarch - and did you complete their claim form, as requested? It's quite an achievement to have had a response at all - even a predictable "no".

Well folks it looks like, if Monarch aren't paying out on straightforward issues like this, they're not going to play nice. So it's Court or fold for all of us, as we sort of knew it would have to be.

Not strictly true, I can see how they can claim its an exceptional circumstance, not saying they are right but I could see how they can claim they cant forsee a person being sick and it would be an exceptional occurance, I dont think thats a clearcut one by any means

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

Thanks for flagging that - I have left a comment. Perhaps someone else can put this link of Monarch's
Facebook page? (lest I look like a one-man obsessive!)

Thanks for the thanks! I am not a facebook 'member' so maybe someone else could oblige

Vauban

glentoran99 wrote: »

Not strictly true, I can see how they can claim its an exceptional circumstance, not saying they are right but I could see how they can claim they cant forsee a person being sick and it would be an exceptional occurance, I dont think thats a clearcut one by any means

Really?

"An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken."

"[This] must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control."

Is having a pilot fall sick and fail to show for work not an incident inherent in the normal business of the airline? I am certain that must happen all the time.

Could Monarch have taken reasonable measures to ensure they could respond to this? Probably, yes.

Note the "and" in the last sentence: this means, in my view, that the incident both needs to be genuinely unusual and that there was nothing the airline could have done to mitigate it. I think Monarch would fail in court on both counts.

glentoran99

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying they are right, but I can see how they are claiming that hoping that the claimer would accept it and go away,

i did just find this though

An airline must provide not only turnkey machines – but also lasting working staff. If a flight because the pilot gets sick, passengers are entitled to a compensation payment.
An airline must expect that a pilot can get sick. If the flight, for example, because of a circulatory collapse of the captain, customers are entitled to compensation under EU law. The company can not be an “exceptional circumstance” appointed by which it is exempt from the obligation to pay, the district court decided Darmstadt (Ref.: 7 S 250/11). Then the German Society of Travel Law “has currently travel law” in her magazine down. In that case, the applicant had booked a return flight from Zanzibar to Frankfurt. Because the pilot had a circulatory collapse, the departure is postponed by 24 hours. The airline argued that it could not prevent the disease from crew members abroad through preventative measures. Therefore, they should be considered as “exceptional circumstance” within the meaning of legal travel
This, the court is not so. The airline is not only obliged to provide a ready to use machine available, but also lasting working staff. The flight distance of 3500 kilometers accordingly – - the applicant was to Compensation granted 600 euros.



http://dabozzz.com/sick-pilot-airline-must-pay-compensation-to-passengers/

Vauban

glentoran99 wrote: »

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying they are right, but I can see how they are claiming that hoping that the claimer would accept it and go away,

i did just find this though ...

I agree with you completely - I think that's exactly their tactic. Perhaps it will even work with most people?

Thanks for the link to the German court action, which reinforces the interpretation above. I don't think the EU Regulations are ambiguous in this regard any more: the airlines have lost, and need to "man up" and meet their obligations. Weasels!

glentoran99

Does anyone think when we get our inevitable rejections that its worth going back to the airline with facts telling them they are wrong, or just go straight for court?