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

Ich_2

you really do need to re-examine your approach on here.

And you are what in the operation of this forum? Other than someone who has interpreted the legal mine fields?

But anyway thank you for my school lesson and my teachers report!!

how the law is read and applied leave a lot to be desired.

4poc

It's all healthy discussion, so don't take anything personally. I, for one, appreciate your arguments as it gives me a taste of what the airline may throw at me in court. Which, by the way, had notice served beginning of May. I just pray that the judge won't be bamboozled with seemingly convincing technical information how the "ruptured left hand left bleed duct" is quite serious, unexpected and unforeseen". Which, by the way happened on a third previous flight.

Ich_2

is quite serious

That bit is true, and enough for an aircraft to be grounded by statute until fixed.

unexpected and unforeseen

".
Quite possibly.

I recall that the judgement discussed above does tell us that the frequency of an event cannot be used to decide if it is or if not an EC. That I think applies both ways!

Vauban

4poc wrote: »

It's all healthy discussion, so don't take anything personally. I, for one, appreciate your arguments as it gives me a taste of what the airline may throw at me in court. Which, by the way, had notice served beginning of May. I just pray that the judge won't be bamboozled with seemingly convincing technical information how the "ruptured left hand left bleed duct" is quite serious, unexpected and unforeseen". Which, by the way happened on a third previous flight.

I don't mind the discussion either, but I think some of Ich's assertions are simply untrue, and some of his interpretations a bit wide of the mark. But you're right that the kind of stuff Ich says is likely to be the kind of arguments that the airlines make - which makes the exchange helpful.

Centipede posted a useful document from a legal company that often represents the airlines on why the limitation was six rather than 2 years. They also published another document in 2011 (before Sturgeon was reconfirmed in the Tui case) which said the following on the relationship between extraordinary circumstances and technical failures:

In Wallentin, it was held that carriers could not rely on
the "extraordinary circumstances" exemption from the
obligation to compensate passengers in the event of flight
cancellation, if the cancellation stemmed from technical
problems with the aircraft, save in very limited
circumstances. This is despite the wording in recital 14
of the Regulation which cites "unexpected flight safety
shortcomings" as an example of what might be

"extraordinary".

I think that captures it very neatly.

You can read their full report here: http://www.dlapiper.com/files/Publication/ec7263b4-8400-404b-84b9-d2112ae50342/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/98f1bb89-085f-445b-9df3-d5a51276fdea/Aviation_Legal_Update_Sep_2011.pdf

Ich_2

I don't mind the discussion either, but I think some of Ich's assertions are simply untrue, and some of his interpretations a bit wide of the mark.

Hey, understand this, if I'm wrong in my interpretation I'm wrong. I have NEVER claimed to be a legal expert!
What does get my goat is the condesending attitude sometimes displayed if the boat is being rocked or an honest opinion (though possibly incorrect) that is different from the norm is given, especially from folk who may themselves not be legal experts.

111KAB

Ich wrote: »

Hey, understand this, if I'm wrong in my interpretation I'm wrong. I have NEVER claimed to be a legal expert!
What does get my goat is the condesending attitude sometimes displayed if the boat is being rocked or an honest opinion (though possibly incorrect) that is different from the norm is given, especially from folk who may themselves not be legal experts.

My main worry is that I feel it important that people are given the correct facts insofar as people have the knowledge/experience to respond correctly as we are, in most cases (and particularly in respect of Monarch) almost certainly facing a small claims scenario.
Having been through the Court process once I have to say I found Centipede's help extremely useful, to the point and I believe 'spot on' as far as the judge was concerned.

Eastway01

Monarch have filed its defence to my claim for compensation for a delay of just over 4 hours on the last flight of the day from Mahon to BHX on 28.5.12.


All we knew at the time was that the outbound flight from BHX was delayed, and Monarch was handing out leaflets at the airport stating that the delay was due to their own operational reasons. We had heard that Monarch was having to get a plane from Gatwick to BHX to bring out the outbound flight on which we would make the return.
The salient parts of Monarch's defence are as follows:
"The Claimants' flight was delayed as a result of a power cut at Birmingham Airport prior to the Slot 1 flight (first flight of the day). Due to the power cut the Defendant was constrained in loading the baggage onto the aircraft. This caused a delay of approximately 2 hours. Additionally, the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate the Claimant's flight was declared unserviceable at 2300 on 27th May due to a slide being inadvertently deployed in turnaround. The aircraft was declared serviceable by 5am however the Birmingham fleet was then confronted with the power cut. The Defendant submits that but for the power cut the Claimant's flight would not have been delayed over 3 hours.
In an attempt to minimise the delay, the Defendant offloaded the Claimant's flight onto the first available aircraft in the Defendant's fleet (GMONS). This aircraft operated its morning flights as scheduled from Gatwick and then positioned up from Gatwick to operate the Claimant's flight. The Defendant is a smaller airline with 33 aircraft within its fleet; as such it does not have spare aircraft that it can utilise when one is taken out of service unexpectedly. This caused a delay to the outbound flight to Mahon which in turn caused a delay to the Claimants' flight."
It goes on to say that the power cut was caused by a third party and was therefore an extraordinary circumstance.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between saying that the power cut caused a delay of 2 hours but they then had to get another plane which ended up with the delay being over 4 hours.
Any observations gratefully received!

Ich_2

Any observations gratefully received!

Aircraft A (due to operate flight as it's second rotation of the day)
Suffers blown slide the previous night and this is repaired by 05:00 the next morning.
First rotation is delayed by the power cut so baggage could not be loaded to get it away with only a small delay.
This would then possibly lead to increasing delays on that aircraft during the delay.

Decision taken to transfer an aircraft from LGW after it has done it's first rotation(s) of the day to operate Eastway01's flight in the hope that this delay would have been smaller than if they had waited for the initial aircraft.

Makes some sense

The Defendant is a smaller airline with 33 aircraft within its fleet; as such it does not have spare aircraft that it can utilise when one is taken out of service unexpectedly

Intolerable sacrifice financially to bear the cost of a spare for a fleet of that size? But with 4 or 5 UK bases they would probably need more than one and of different sizes. (a new Boeing 787-800 costs about £60million)


Fleet age can be no indicatior of reliability

111KAB

Monarch have accepted that they need a stand-by plane this year and have indicated that once their current problems are resolved (ie accident/repainting/new seating) they will have one UK based 'spare' Airbus. Monarch are not buying planes any longer and recently did a sale and leaseback on 3 of their fleet and the only planes not leased are those which are to old to sell onto a leasing company. With the Birmingham > Prestwick accident, the Cyprus planes and the re-seat programme Monarch have sub chartered (their words) or wet leased planes this past weekend from the likes of Pullmantur, Titan, Air Italy, NEOS and Niki Air. The age/type of plane/location of Monarch planes corresponds directly to reliability/delays.

friendofbillw2

Ich wrote: »

Intolerable sacrifice financially to bear the cost of a spare for a fleet of that size? But with 4 or 5 UK bases they would probably need more than one and of different sizes. (a new Boeing 787-800 costs about £60million)

But did they do everything possible to keep the delay below 4 hours? Did they attempt to 'wet lease' for instance?

Ich wrote: »

Fleet age can be no indicatior of reliability

At the risk of being schoolmasterly...

Cobblers.

All mechanical and electrical components will have a mean time to failure, some parts are replaced within maintenance schedules, some are just checked or tested to ensure they are unlikely to fail before the next inspection. By definition these MTTFs are an average, some components will fail before, usually in line with the normal distribution.

An aeroplane is about as complex as mechanical, electrical and electronic devices come. Therefore the more flying hours it completes (broadly the older it gets), the more likely it is to suffer some sort of technical failure.

Also technology moves on. As we work out what makes them fail by using them, we design in little tweaks so they spend less time on the ground surrounded by spanners, and more time in the air loaded with passengers.

Therefore it can be seen that fleet age will certainly have an impact on reliability.

If you don't agree, answer me this. Why aren't five year old planes worth as much as three year old ones?