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

Ich_2

Did they attempt to 'wet lease' for instance?

From who?

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.

Exactly! But we are told by the courts and on here that it is all the airline's fault if they fail within normal acceptable levels but outside the average times despite all this

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

From who?

Exactly! But we are told by the courts and on here that it is all the airline's fault if they fail within normal acceptable levels but outside the average times despite all this

I don't mean to be schoolmasterly either, but I think one important correction to this assertion:

The Courts have not said that it is the airlines' fault if parts break unexpectedly, but they have said that it is their responsibility either to fix the problem speedily, to find another way to ensure the passenger is put quickly on their way, or to compensate them if they cannot do this. This is called consumer protection, and I personally welcome it.

Now you can argue with integrity that this law is unfair, unwise or unreasonable. What one cannot do though - at least with integrity - is to pretend that the obligations this law prescribes don't really apply or to misrepresent the law to those who make a claim. That is shoddy and dishonest. In my view, airlines that do this not only do not deserve my custom, but don't deserve to be in business.

Chris1447

There seem to be a lot of knowledge contributors to this site who apparently have a good grasp of the law.Their advise is very helpful and well meaning. However I do not wish to appear negative but by their own admission they are not lawyers or judges. Until some cases are heard in the Small Claims Court these "Buffs" have no certainty whether the caees are going to go for or against Monarch and anyone who says otherwise is given false hope at this stage. The old saying that "The law moves in mysterious ways" could be true here. Therefore until th results of some early cases have been decided, I will be holding putting my claim forward to be heared in the Small Claims Court until I know which way the pendulum is swinging. I have notified Monarch that I wish my case to remain open and I reserve the right to take the matter to the Small Claims Court at a later stage. Monarch have acknowledged this is being done by E Mail. Hopefully it will not be too long before some cases start being heard, the first ones seem to be taking an eternity. I will probably be "Castigated" by those of you who state Monarch have no chance of winning but nobody can be sure of the outcome.

NorthumberlandLady

I've just watched the item on BBC's Watchdog in which they discussed the fact that Monarch (amongst others) are trying to claim EC for technical faults and that the EU is ruling to change this by 2015.
There was a spokesperson from the CAA authority who said that they would take on these cases on our behalf free of charge - I must have misunderstood - I thought the CAA did not enforce anything nor act as a legal service.
With this in mind is it not worth contacting the CAA to take on each case, rather than taking the possible risk of expense at small claims court?

Vauban

NorthumberlandLady wrote: »

I've just watched the item on BBC's Watchdog in which they discussed the fact that Monarch (amongst others) are trying to claim EC for technical faults and that the EU is ruling to change this by 2015.
There was a spokesperson from the CAA authority who said that they would take on these cases on our behalf free of charge - I must have misunderstood - I thought the CAA did not enforce anything nor act as a legal service.
With this in mind is it not worth contacting the CAA to take on each case, rather than taking the possible risk of expense at small claims court?

I think you misunderstood. The point he was making was that the CAA will try to mediate to get the airlines to pay up - if they think you have a case. That's what they do at the moment. Only given the spokesman's performance, where he refused to say that knock on effects or technical difficulties were not ECs, I wouldn't regard the CAA as an impartial friend. The expert independent lawyer was much better, in my view.

NorthumberlandLady

Vauban wrote: »

I think you misunderstood. The point he was making was that the CAA will try to mediate to get the airlines to pay up - if they think you have a case. That's what they do at the moment. Only given the spokesman's performance, where he refused to say that knock on effects or technical difficulties were not ECs, I wouldn't regard the CAA as an impartial friend. The expert independent lawyer was much better, in my view.

Yes he did seem to rather squirm when pressed on that point. Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Thank you for the clarification.:)

Den_ram

fbsm46 wrote: »

for information I've received a rejection letter from Monarch today for a 20 hour delay on the above flight. Our friends have also received one. Is the next step to complain to the CAA? Or straight to small claims court? Also can the above flight be added to the list of rejections. Thanks

Hi! I was also on this flight and sent a claim letter off today! How are you getting on with your claim? Did you go to the CAA or small claims? Thanks!

friendofbillw2

Again, at the risk of being schoolmasterly... LOL

Ich wrote: »

From who?

From anyone? Anyone at all? 'Did they attempt...' was the question.

Ich wrote: »

Exactly!

Oh, I see how you are debating this. You put up any old nonsense, we correct it with a statement of the obvious, which you then claim as your own.

Can you please join Monarch's legal team? I can see your approach going down a storm with District Judges up and down the land.

Karb

Ich wrote: »

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.




Nope, see above

You speak very knowledgeably about the industry and it's procedures, and I am cautious about doubting you, but I'm horrified if that is true. I'm no legal expert, but I am a health & safety manager. While I'm sure such manuals exist and are used as the starting point when determining the maintenance regime, the idea that there is no requirement on an airline to assess the impact of how they utilise their aircraft cannot be right surely?

It would be like you and I buying identical cars, and one of us driving a few miles through city centre traffic at rush hour each day, and the other one driving virtually non stop across the Arctic circle, the snowy Alps, and through African desert, then expecting to see the same results when we each took it in for our 10,000 mile service!

Ich wrote: »

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!

In fairness, I don't think that this is the issue here.

Nobody expects an airline to cover every eventuality. They are being asked to cover the main issues, and compensate their customers who haven't received the service that they have paid for when its an eventuality that the airline hasn't accounted for.

The idea is that if its a once in a blue moon happening, then the airline will only need to pay out once in a blue moon so aren't about to be put out of business. If it's an everyday occurrence, then the airline should have plans in place to deal with it.

coffdrops

Hi all, I'm a newbie so apologies in advance.

I've trawled through the post on this thread and now my head is spinning. I wondered if anyone could advise on my personal situation, as I've just received the standard Monarch refusal. The flight in question was FB012 from Luton to Malaga on 12/08/2011 and the total delay was 7 hours 13 minutes. The refusal email states;

"[FONT=&quot]Our records show that having two of our aircraft declared unserviceable by our engineers due to a hydraulic and engine fault there were insufficient aircraft within our fleet to operate your flight on time. In order to reduce the length of your delay and minimise the disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet. Despite our best efforts these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 looked on the EUClaim website as I'm not sure I'm confident enough to proceed to court myself. They indicate that I may have a case and also that I could proceed against my credit card company instead, so now I have no idea which way to jump. Any advice would be gratefully received.


[/FONT]