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

Vauban

BigRedManc wrote: »

Their response was to quote Wallentin v Alitalia, and say that "technical problems are covered by those exceptionalcircumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control"

They go on to state that the EU ruling then provided illustrative examples of technical problems that would amount to extraordinary circumstances including such events as a manufacturing defect, airworthiness issues etc.

Even by Monarch's standards,, this is pretty dire. It would be useful to know EXACTLY what Monarch said in their letter. But for the avoidance of doubt it is true that Wallentin gives illustrations of the kinds of technical problems that might be regarded as extraordinary. It says:

"It cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism."

In other words, a grounding of the entire fleet due to a manufacture's warning, or a deliberate third-party attempt to damage the aircraft, could be extraordinary. Stuff breaking down is not. And in case there is any doubt Wallentin also notes:

"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."

I am confident that this European case law, which is binding on the UK courts, does not bear out in any way Monarch's tendentious, if not dishonest, interpretation. In my view though there is no point reasoning with them: they simply push you off towards the CAA (which in turn takes many, many months to consider your case). Given the strength of your position, as I see it, I would proceed immediately to Court and expose the poverty of Monarch's argument to a judge.

Ich_2

I'm gong to ask one of my questions again!!

"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."

Is well understood, if the airline fails to maintain it and it breaks it is their problem!

But what if an airline correctly maintains it and it still fails? They can show they follow all required maintenence (they have no choice really) or that there is actually no required maintenence.
That seems to be in opposition of the "failure to maintain" condition.

Is the fact that they do maintain it as required by law and some parts still fail where they are coming from?

Not forgetting either that a lot of "tech" issues mean that though capable, an aircrfaft cannot legally be allowed to carry passengers in flight and are thus grounded by the manufacturer or the authorities until the defect is repaired.

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

I'm gong to ask one of my questions again!!

Is well understood, if the airline fails to maintain it and it breaks it is their problem!

But what if an airline correctly maintains it and it still fails? They can show they follow all required maintenence (they have no choice really) or that there is actually no required maintenence.
That seems to be in opposition of the "failure to maintain" condition.

Is the fact that they do maintain it as required by law and some parts still fail where they are coming from?

Not forgetting either that a lot of "tech" issues mean that though capable, an aircrfaft cannot legally be allowed to carry passengers in flight and are thus grounded by the manufacturer or the authorities until the defect is repaired.

It's a good question, and I wondered at first whether the "failure to maintain" point refered to an airline that had performed substandard maintenance. But actually I don't think it does, when it is read in its full context.

The judgement says upfront: "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. 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." My interpretation is that the "therefore" means that technical failures are an inevitable part of flying, and that "failure to maintain" simply means "when something breaks", rather than implying fault.

I think paras 24-25 confirm this interpretation. Wallentin concedes that "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." It therefore assumes a high level of maintenance as the norm. But it goes on to say: that "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." So whether you find the fault or it finds you does not materially alter your obligation to pay compensation.

Nowhere does the Wallentin judgement - or any of the other judgements - say that if an airline can demonstrate that it performed the statutory maintenance requirements then any subsequent technical failures would be "extraordinary". Indeed, that makes sense since one would hope that no technical failure would be the consequence of a failure of the maintenance regime. That would be in fact a criminal matter, presumably? Technical failures (or "failure to maintain an aircraft", as Wallentin describes them) just happen as a fact of life - with airplanes as well as indeed any complex machine.

Karb

Is there anything in law that dictates how much something shall be maintained? I'd be surprised.

I imagine that it will be down to the airline to determine their maintenance regime based on their risk assessment, as I would imagine an aircraft which shuttles over short distances within the UK only (for example) would have a different set of maintenance requirements to one which flies longer distances and/or to different climates (I have absolutely no idea whether this is true by the way, I'm just surmising here).

To my mind, the fact that Monarch seems to suffer considerably more "technical defects" than any other airline would seem to indicate that they have got their planned preventative maintenance regime badly wrong.

Ich_2

Is there anything in law that dictates how much something shall be maintained? I'd be surprised.

In a word - yes

The manufacturer provides an operations and maintenance manual for it's aircraft. As part of the approval procedure for the aircraft to operate this is agreed by the regulatory authorities, failure to adhere can be punishable in a court of law.

I imagine that it will be down to the airline to determine their maintenance regime based on their risk assessment

Nope, see above

Ich_2

failure to maintain

I would suggest that this amount of vagueness is very rare in a legal judgement and that airline legal counsel may have a different interpretation to that on here. Which could lead folk up a blind alley. But if the three words are taken at face value ....

Nowhere does the Wallentin judgement - or any of the other judgements - say that if an airline can demonstrate that it performed the statutory maintenance requirements then any subsequent technical failures would be "extraordinary".

Equally it doesn't say they can't. If if isn't prohibited is it not the case it is permitted?)

As I've commented the difference between a technical failure and a flight safety issue needs to be understood.
As an example if the IFE fails prior to departure there is nothing to stop that departure as it is not a safety issue, a customer service issue perhaps.
If the PA system fails the aircraft cannot depart with passengers on-board as loss of PA system (or parts of of it) is a flight safety issue.

Both could be described as "tech" issues and have and will be done so by the airlines to avoid anguish by nervous flyers.

Dispatch of an aircraft is governed by a document known as an MEL (minimum equipment list) this lists the acceptable faults that can exist without affecting safety and with which an aircraft may be dispatched (it does also say, in some cases, how long the fault is permitted to exist before the aircraft is grounded)
If an item is not on that list an aircraft cannot be dispatched (windscreens being one of them)

In flight a whole different set of documents govern flight crew reactions to incidents in flight (land immediately, land at the nearest suitable airport, carry on to destination)

The initial report into the Thomson IFE fire last week shows an interesting situation. Smoke in the cabin, visible flames & an emergency descent and diversion was described in a press release as a minor technical problem!!

And Virgin say: -

Technical problems stemming from events which by their nature or origin are not inherent in the normal exercise of our flying activity and are beyond our actual control. i.e mechanical discrepancies outside of the standard manufacturer's maintenance manual are exempt from compensation.

4poc

..."mechanical discrepancies outside of the standard manufacturer's maintenance manual are exempt from compensation."

Giving my tupppence worth of wisdom, shouldn't that be that when the mechanical discrepancy is discovered, then it does come under the airlines's control. They know about it and they get e techie in, get spare part, draft in another aircraft etc.
Surely the 3&4 hour rule is meant for such eventualities under which airlines do not pay compensation so as to give them time to sort these things out.

Ich_2

Surely the 3&4 hour rule is meant for such eventualities under which airlines do not pay compensation so as to give them time to sort these things out.

In part that is correct but the reality is that they claim and it would be hard to show otherwise, it would be an intolerable sacrifice to station a full set of spare parts or an aircraft and crew at remote destinations.
Yes it could be done but at the risk of putting airfares out of reach of most of the populous (or is that is what intended, it would reduce pollution).
As discussed, there are just not airliners sat around waiting for someone to hire them!

Vauban

Virgin say? Then it must be true!

Nice try - but no cigar. It is clear that Wallentin, and ALL the subsequent judgements, make it clear that technical issues are not extraordinary circumstances. And the airlines know it. Which is why they desperately challenged the Tui case. If tech issues were EC, why would the airlines have fought Sturgeon tooth 'n' nail?

Ich_2

Virgin say? Then it must be true!

Calm down it was an example of what the airlines are saying!

Just been reading the judgement and I am of the view that most of the stuff being quoted are just explanatory (the Grounds as they are entitled) items prior to the actual judgement which are the final 3 paragraphs entitled: - Operative Part, which is the bit that I suggest really matters to lower courts.

But you've been at it longer than me and have a personal interest so must be right!