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

suelees1

Vauban wrote: »

I have put a link to the Guardian article on Monarch's Facebook page. I wonder if they'll take it down?

So have I Vauban...and I've commented on the Guardian page

suelees1

LBD wrote: »

lol so have I....just cant figure out how to do it ont he daily mail one thought duh!!!

Scroll to the bottom of the article and the comments.....voila!!!

Vauban

glentoran99 wrote: »

reading that im now thinking ive no chance

Whoa, whoa! Let's just be clear what this document is, shall we? It is not (not) a ruling from the CAA on how they interpret Extraordinary Circumstances. It is the airlines' response to an initial suggestion from the CAA on how they might interpret the regulations.

Read the original letter from the CAA to the airline industry, and their proposed tracked changes, here:

http://www.eraa.org/docman/cat_view/123-myera/494-member-downloads

Worth noting too that the CAA letter was written before the judgement was received, I think.

Specific update for Glentoran99: I note that the "crew unfit to fly" addition is not the CAA's - it's the airline industry's!

Pez4

Mark2spark wrote: »

Congrats to mbyrne01 :T:T:T

AFAIA you are the first recorded instance of a 'settled' claim from Monarch without introducing a court claim.

Down to the meat... so a first officer reported sick 6 hours before having to clock on... which is 2 hours before departure, and there was a 10 hour delay. So that's 18 hours time in total that Monarch had to find another first officer?
Pah!
IMO take them to court.

Hi Mark

I have put a claim in for a delay, May 2012. Monarch replied to my original email, June 2012, by stating that the delay was caused by a delay in re-fueling at Luton airport. I have since filled in their claim forms, November 2012, and although they have not yet refused my claim I have had no further correspondence from them. My mcol is going in this week.

suelees1

111KAB wrote: »

Thanks for the thanks! I am not a facebook 'member' so maybe someone else could oblige

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/Monarch?fref=ts

glentoran99

Vauban wrote: »

Whoa, whoa! Let's just be clear what this document is, shall we? It is not (not) a ruling from the CAA on how they interpret Extraordinary Circumstances. It is the airlines' response to an initial suggestion from the CAA on how they might interpret the regulations.

Read the original letter from the CAA to the airline industry, and their proposed tracked changes, here:

http://www.eraa.org/docman/cat_view/123-myera/494-member-downloads

Worth noting too that the CAA letter was written before the judgement was received, I think.

Specific update for Glentoran99: I note that the "crew unfit to fly" addition is not the CAA's - it's the airline industry's!

Ah right, i see, all is not lost

My plane wouldnt start so that means tha fault was only discovered just before take off

rocking69

LBD wrote: »

Its exactly that train of thought they are banking on....:mad:

Yeh, well I dont wan't Monarch or any other airline to end up in the same situation as the banks did (bust!) and nor do I want to pay for everyone's compensation next time am looking to book a flight.

glentoran99

LBD wrote: »

glentoran99 wrote: »

Not strictly true, I can see how they can claim its an exceptional circumstance, not saying they are right but I could see how they can claim they cant foresee a person being sick and it would be an exceptional occurrence, I don't think thats a clearcut one by any means[/QUOTE

Glen am sorry if you thought the info posting was a ruling as has been suggested....

I only posted it to show what the guidelines were, if I did not make that clear, then please accept my apology....

No need for any apology

111KAB

Firstly before anyone says I am suggesting Monarch planes are unsafe this is not my reasoning behind posting the following information. I do so merely as a matter of record so that others may see possibly why Monarch planes appear to have the odd problem from time to time.....

MONARCH - 31 planes - average age 14.5 years - mainly Airbus but they have 3 Boeing 757's ~ 2 are 25 years old and the other 26 years.

RYANAIR - 305 planes - average age 4 years - all Boeing 737's

EASYJET - 190 planes - average age 4.6 years - mainly Airbus.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Firstly before anyone says I am suggesting Monarch planes are unsafe this is not my reasoning behind posting the following information. I do so merely as a matter of record so that others may see possibly why Monarch planes appear to have the odd problem from time to time.....

MONARCH - 31 planes - average age 14.5 years - mainly Airbus but they have 3 Boeing 757's ~ 2 are 25 years old and the other 26 years.

RYANAIR - 305 planes - average age 4 years - all Boeing 737's

EASYJET - 190 planes - average age 4.6 years - mainly Airbus.

That's a very interesting statistic ... Explains a lot.

Ive decided that, unless Monarch give me a clear answer on Friday to my claim of late October (forms emailed to them on 5 Nov), then I have little option but to proceed with a formal Letter Before Action. They will have had my claim then for three months, and even my patience has its limits.

I'm pretty clear that the discovery of a cracked windscreen at Gatwick (which is what i understood happened) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances (it being neither unusual, nor beyond the airline's ability to remedy reasonably quickly). Yet somehow I don't expect Monarch to hold their hands up to this one ...