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

friendofbillw2

medsec54 wrote: »

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a rudder fault prior to departure from Gatwick, rendering the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. As a consequence and in order to minimise disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft.

So the Rudder problem took quite a while to fix! We received a letter which quoted 'Technical problem' but unfortunately I did not keep it.

Here is the paragraph I got which gives a bit more detail :


Ourrecords show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight developed arudder defect that rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly.Engineers attended the aircraft and ascertained that a replacement componentwas required. This part was sourced and transported from France at the earliestopportunity; therefore a lengthy delay was unavoidable. As a consequence and inorder to minimise disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to thefirst available aircraft.

I still don't think that is ECs, and I certainly don't think they went to the point of 'intolerable sacrifices', but we'll see what the court decides.

I'll keep you all posted as I progress.

111KAB

coffdrops wrote: »

So assuming I decide to use a company such as Flightmole, does that mean I shouldn't submit an NBA, presumably because they would take care of it, or should I submit it and then pass the case over to Flightmole?

If you use Flightmole (and they accept the instruction!) just leave everything to them. Hugh knows what he is doing but he will need everything you have had from them so far.

coffdrops

111KAB wrote: »

If you use Flightmole (and they accept the instruction!) just leave everything to them. Hugh knows what he is doing but he will need everything you have had from them so far.

That's brilliant, thanks. I've kept copies of everything to date, as well as all original paperwork relevant to the flight, so no problems there.

russetred

Ich wrote: »

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!

After reading several of your posts I am curious have you been delayed and are thinking of seeking compensation? You post on several different threads on the flight delay board which of course you are free to do but I have not seen anything to suggest why you have such an interest. I hope this does not come across as rude in any way I'm just puzzled.

Magic_Moments

medsec54 wrote: »

I have just received the following:
Re: MON1507 21st September 2011 Fuerteventura to Gatwick

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

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 the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a rudder fault prior to departure from Gatwick, rendering the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. As a consequence and in order to minimise disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft.

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.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further assistance or information.

So the Rudder problem took quite a while to fix! We received a letter which quoted 'Technical problem' but unfortunately I did not keep it. [/QUOTE
We received an identical response for the excactly the same flight over 2 months ago. The CAA are investigating and I had an E Mail from the CAA this week saying they are continuing theitr investigations and have wriiten to Monarch for further information. Althought it may be a month or two before we receive a further communication, we will wait to see what the CAA conclusion is before taking the matter to Court.

Stewil

I have sent a letter giving them 14 days notice of my intention to go to court and thanks for the tip about the CAA my flight was from the UK but that's a good idea ill let the processes run concurrently

How much technical information and legal knowledge will I need to counter there case if they decide to fight it, and has anyone actually gone all the way on this before??

suelees1

It's good to see yet another rudder defect (well, not good but you know what I mean). There are several instances of this on here now including mine, so it's not such an extraordinary circumstance after all despite what we've been told. Monarch's letter (along with a £5 voucher) given to one of our party at the check-in desk does state there was a "technical problem". I've been procrastinating with my LBA so must get a move on.

Mark2spark are you still updating the flights on page 1?

Eastway01

Ich wrote: »

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

Except there was no "first rotation" of the day. The only flight out of BHX to MAH that day was scheduled for 2.45pm but actually departed 7.19pm (4 hours 34 mins late). So why the misleading reference to the earlier power cut and slide issue? Unless "rotation" includes going from BHX to somewhere else then back to BHX then to MAH for the afternoon/evening "rotation".

The_rev

:money:Compensation cheque for £2550 received today. Flight details etc below.

The_rev wrote: »

I filled a claim one month ago for a family of 5 on a Monarch flight from 2008. I've just received an email telling me I am entitled to compensation!!!! (£510 each) I will post a follow up message when (and if) the cheque arrives.

Thank you so much MSE - if I hadn't signed up to your weekly email I wouldn't have known anything about this.

Flight details etc below - and good luck to all those still waiting to hear the outcome of their claims.


FlightDetails: MON312 Sanford to Cardiff 14/08/2008


Ican confirm that your claim for compensation has now been assessed and you areentitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due toyour delay.


In line with the above a cheque to the value of£510 (the Sterling equivalent of €600 based on today’s Reuters exchange rate)will be forwarded to each claimant within twenty one working days.

meandu229

Another success story

ZB684 on 12 May 2012 from Manchester (Man) to Sharm El Sheik (SSH) with the scheduled departure time of 10.00am. Arrived over 5 hours late at Sharm El Sheik (SSH).
Just filled in form (+docs etc) on this site sent it off end of march (28th~) via mail then after a month sent an email asking where they were at with it got the standard

I can confirm that your claim for compensation has now been assessed and you are entitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due to your delay.

cheque within 21 days email.
Cheques recieved today for £507 pp. Thanks alot guys could you add this flight to the 1st post