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

alibythesea

wytangel wrote: »

ZB248 LGW/SSH on 14Oct2012 scheduled 10.10, departed 16.24.
ZB742 LGW/AGP on 14Oct2012 scheduled 15.25, departed 20.02.
Monarch's response to both alibythesea and myself states of ZB248 "the decision was made to operate this flight on the aircraft originally scheduled your flight from London Gatwick to Malaga" (i.e. ZB742).
We were also told this by desk staff in response to heated objections about the delay. How certain are you that your ZB248 flight used the plane/crew from the delayed returning flight ZB247?

I have now seen that Reemas who appeared to be on this flight with me has now received compensation( post 1509) whereas I have been refused.I will be sending a further letter to Monarch stressing that it was not my plane with the fault- anything else I should say/quote? Any advice appreciated. Thanks

Vauban

alibythesea wrote: »

I have now seen that Reemas who appeared to be on this flight with me has now received compensation( post 1509) whereas I have been refused.I will be sending a further letter to Monarch stressing that it was not my plane with the fault- anything else I should say/quote? Any advice appreciated. Thanks

I wonder why you think writing again to Monarch will make any difference? I don't think you can reason them into paying up.

SuperSeagulls

Vauban wrote: »

Background is in #1180 on page 59.

It tooks months for Monarch to respond to me - in fact they didn't, or at least not until I started legal action. I'm now just waiting for a court date, Avignon submitted my allocation questionnaire at the end of March. The process is not swift!

OK - thanks!

colingreathead

Hi I've received my answer from Monarch declining my claim,

Our records show that due to strong headwinds during a previous flight from Brize Norton to Calgary, Canada, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was delayed in returning to the UK. As a result it was not able to position in Manchester at the scheduled departure time of the outbound flight to Sanford and consequently did not arrive to operate your flight on time. Despite Monarch’s best efforts to reduce the length of your delay and source alternate aircraft, there was no availability and your flight operated at the earliest opportunity on the original aircraft.

Having considered the factual background of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption in your case 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.

The pervious flight was delayed due to it needing a computer to be replaced and head winds according to Monarch's response to other claimant posted on this site. is there any point in perusing my claim further?

Mark2spark

suelees1 wrote: »

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?

I'm only doing the successful claims now, there's little point in extending the list of EC's, as people will have to write and commence a claim anyway, and receive a rejection letter as part of that process.

ang216bc

Just an update to say that a date for Court has been set for early July although the Judge has decided that the case is suitable for mediation.

I will follow this process and see what happens.

Will keep the Forum posted with any developments.

Karb

Submitted my MCOL form today. I shall forward the correspondence to the CAA too and hope that they give some backing to my case.

Eve4ever

Hi does anyone know how long an Airline legally has to hang on to passenger manifests for?

111KAB

ang216bc wrote: »

.... although the Judge has decided that the case is suitable for mediation.
I will follow this process and see what happens.

Standard response I feel. In my case, at mediation, airline said they would reimburse my Court fee if I withdrew whereas I said I would drop the 8% interest surcharge ie there was a major discrepancy on the difference we were prepared to accept .... result ..... off to Court.

4poc

Eve4ever wrote: »

Hi does anyone know how long an Airline legally has to hang on to passenger manifests for?

Found this online which says about 5 years, however it is extremely difficult to obtain copy of it in any case...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/us-to-store-passenger-data