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

Vauban

coffdrops wrote: »

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]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. "[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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]

That is a very peculiar letter. It does not require two aircraft to fly you to your destination - and the killer phrase "there were insufficient aircraft in our fleet to operate your flight on time" implies to me that the aircraft scheduled for your flight was used elsewhere. In other instances where the airplane that was scheduled to operate your flight suffers a technical failure, Monarch are quick to tell you so (and claim how extraordinary it is!).

If my instinct is right on this, then this is absolutely not extraordinary in any way, shape or form, and you would have an exceptionally strong case in law (though I am not a lawyer). You could try writing to Monarch one last time, asking them specifically whether the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight had suffered a technical defect, and for further details on that. But they will take ages to answer, and may well just clam up!

coffdrops

Thanks Vauban. We did hear other passengers in the departure lounge saying that our plane had been sent elsewhere and that the delay was due to having to wait for it to return, so I doubt there was any sort of technical problem with the plane assigned for our flight. In a Monarch letter handed to us at the check in desk, it states briefly "unfortunately, this is due to technical problems within the Monarch fleet which has knocked onto your flight". All this would tend to suggest that you are correct in your assumption.

Having seen Watchdog and the lackluster performance of the CAA representative, I'm tempted to skip complaining to them and either let EUclaim pursue the case, or proceed against my credit card company. I'm not sure which yet until I've done some research, but either way I'm not letting Monarch fob me off when it amounts to a €1600 claim.

Vauban

coffdrops wrote: »

Thanks Vauban. We did hear other passengers in the departure lounge saying that our plane had been sent elsewhere and that the delay was due to having to wait for it to return, so I doubt there was any sort of technical problem with the plane assigned for our flight. In a Monarch letter handed to us at the check in desk, it states briefly "unfortunately, this is due to technical problems within the Monarch fleet which has knocked onto your flight". All this would tend to suggest that you are correct in your assumption.

Having seen Watchdog and the lackluster performance of the CAA representative, I'm tempted to skip complaining to them and either let EUclaim pursue the case, or proceed against my credit card company. I'm not sure which yet until I've done some research, but either way I'm not letting Monarch fob me off when it amounts to a €1600 claim.

Let me save you some time. Assuming you took the flight, you've no claim against the credit card company. Your claim is for statutory compensation under Regulation 261/04 - only the operating airline is liable for that.

You could write to the CAA, but they are pretty hopeless. It is taking months to get a reply, and it doesn't appear that the airlines are heeding their direction. If you are not confident of going through the small claims court process, a no-win no-fee company is probably the best route. Make sure you choose a good one though, that will actually take it to court (rather than just write letters).

coffdrops

Thanks again Vauban, your help is much appreciated. We did indeed take the flight (I should point out that my original post stated the flight as FB012 when it should have been ZB012 - my apologies).
I understand now and the way forward seems pretty clear. I'll go over the thread again and consider the claims companies mentioned.

Plustwokids

Hi , I have also been a long time lurker on this thread , I have now had the extraordinary circumstances letter today. I'm not confident in taking them to court myself, I have posted the relevant bits below , do you very knowledgeable people think its worth the risk?

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.
!
Our records show that during departure from Sanford, the aircraft’s exhaust gas temperature readings on the number one engine fluctuated significantly, resulting in an aborted takeoff. Engineers attended the aircraft to carry out an investigation and they traced the fault to the thermo-couple. Arrangements were made to source and ship the required part out to Sanford in order that it could be replaced. As a consequence, the departure of your flight was unavoidably delayed. However, in order to reduce the delay and minimise disruption, we arranged for and alternative aircraft from within our fleet to operate your flight.
!
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.


If I remember correctly they already knew they had a problem with the aircraft when we arrived to check in but were hopeful it would be resolved . They delayed us an hour or so then said it was all sorted and boarded us. Then the part failed again and we were returned to the terminal. So is it worth passing this onto a claims company for them to fight ?

Thanks in advance for any advice given

Adie_Cartwright

suelees1 wrote: »

Check out page 1 of this thread for details of all flights being discussed on here.

I already did. I am enquiring of a possible claim that has not yet been discussed.

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

What reason did monarch give you regarding the rejection letter?

Ich_2

Sorry I missed that

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?

The main maintenance triggers are flight hours and take off/landing cycles with a strict regime of checks needed between these.
Within this are varying levels of work where some critical parts have to be changed at irregardless of their condition.
These checks are mandatory within the manuals and approved by the regulatory authorities, by this means it serves to prevent less than good operators making up for themselves (and by that I am NOT referring to any major EU airline as they all comply)

Perhaps this will help folk understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks

There are also daily & pre-flight checks that have to be completed

medical

Centipede100 wrote: »

Try this after suitably adapting to suit your exact circumstances (watch the character count for MCOL!):

I claim compensation under Article 7 of EC 261/2004 pursuant to the Sturgeon judgment in the ECJ (Case C-402/07 of 19 November 2009) which provides for [EUR250] per passenger to be paid in the following circumstances.

These were that Monarch delayed my flight from xxxx to xxxx on xx/xx/xx and did not return me until xx/xx/xx, a delay of some xx hours.

Despite writing to Monarch on xx occasions since this event, they have declined to provide an adequate defence under EC 261/2004 Article 5.3, simply stating that the aircraft developed a technical problem and therefore the flight had to be delayed as spare parts had to be sent from the UK. Since technical problems have been found by the ECJ not to provide a valid defence under European precedent case law then I contend that my claim should be allowed.

Pls how do you sign the electronic claim form?
Many thanks
Medical

Stewil

I have had my claim for a 6 hr and 45min delay rejected by monarch on the basis that

"Our record show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight suffered incurred a pre-cooler fault and for safety reasons the aircraft was declared unserviceable until the problem could be rectified. In order to reduce the length of your delay and minimise the disruption to passengers, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within our fleet. Unfortunately these events led to a delay of the scheduled departure time of your flight."

I have given my response after carefully reviewing not only this site but studying the previous legal judgements and have decided to bypass the CAA and go straight to the county court, I have the inclination time and money to pursue this so any advise u can give for my court case would be gratefully received I intend to follow this to its end for all our benifit as we all seem to have one thing in common, a distain for how they treat us once our money is in there bank!

I will provide any further information needed and receive any advice gratefully

Thanks guys