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

Betterthanpar

Mark2spark wrote: »

Aside from the boarding card, 'strict proof' of being on the flight, if taken literally ie 'beyond reasonable doubt', would be hard to prove really. From a documents POV I mean.
I'm going to take a picture of myself on delayed flights from now on :rotfl:

I think it's time we fought back on this "strict proof" business.
I have noted there are many posts where there are significant discrepancies between Monarch's interpretation of the "technical problems" and ours. How about something along the lines of.......

"Defendant is put to strict proof that the alleged technical problem actually occurred as described".

This could be included somewhere in the court notes process?

jocrad74

Vauban wrote: »

If the flight was operated by Thomson, they are the people you will need to claim against (even though you booked a ticket with Monarch).

The crew on the flight told us that Monarch asked them to operate the flight as they did not have any aircraft, it was still coded a ZB flight, Monarch had literally called on Thomson to use their aircraft and crew. As the crew were on standby, it took some time to sort it out. Anyway, I've sent everything to Monarch, let's see what comes f it.

jocrad74

Incidentally, we got an automated email from Monarch yesterday apologising for the delay and asking us to contact them with any queries.

Vauban

jocrad74 wrote: »

The crew on the flight told us that Monarch asked them to operate the flight as they did not have any aircraft, it was still coded a ZB flight, Monarch had literally called on Thomson to use their aircraft and crew. As the crew were on standby, it took some time to sort it out. Anyway, I've sent everything to Monarch, let's see what comes f it.

I can tell you what will come of it: Monarch will refer you to Thomson!

The process you describe is called a "wet lease", and under EU Regulation 261/2004 the airline operating the flight - which is Thomson - are liable, not Monarch. It is irrelevant that it was a ZB flight.

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

I can tell you what will come of it: Monarch will refer you to Thomson!

Sorry to disagree but Monarch firstly will not answer, secondly they will then string you along until finally/thirdly they will tell you that you are out of time as you have left it over six years to take Thomson to court.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Sorry to disagree but Monarch firstly will not answer, secondly they will then string you along until finally/thirdly they will tell you that you are out of time as you have left it over six years to take Thomson to court.

Quite! I did not mean to suggest this would be a speedy process, merely that the end of it will be a referral to Thomson.

That said, I wonder whether we won't see all the usual obsfication dissipate when Monarch know that they're genuinely off the hook. As the OP has already approached them, it will interesting to see just how responsive Monarch prove to be ...

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Since this appears to have been a wet lease situation where Monarch 'contracted' with another airline to perform the flight on their behalf, the liability for any compensation remains with Monarch.

It was Monarch that intended to perform or operate the flight and the fact that they did so with an aircraft and crew from another airline and a ZB code means that liability rests with the original carrier in this instance.

I'm very happy to be corrected, but doesn't 261/04 define the ‘operating air carrier’ in Article 2 as "an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger".

If Thomson are performing that flight on behalf of Monarch (who have the contract with the passenger) don't they become the operating air carrier for the purposes of the regulation?

jocrad74

From a purely simple point of view, and shoot me down if you wish - the only reason we flew on a Thomson aircraft is because the Monarch one was taken out of service - so how can that be Thomson at fault?

mozzer1966

Caz3121 wrote: »

flightstats shows scheduled arrival 7:45AM, actual arrival 4:51PM

mozzer1966 wrote: »

MON3584 Man - Corfu 07/08/09 hydraulic oil leak EC.
would be intresting to know if anyone knows if the return flight MON 3585 was delayed coming back ???? anyone know???

QUOTE=Caz3121;61232225]flightstats shows scheduled arrival 7:45AM, actual arrival 4:51PM[/QUOTE]

many thanks wonder if any compensation was paid out??

suelees1

klint wrote: »

I've just searched through the whole thread and realised that Monarch has sent rejection letters to many people blaming problems with "left rudder", but never with "right rudder"!

(Yes, I know there's only one rudder. When pilots and engineers say "left rudder" they are usually talking about the leftward deflection of the rudder, or the left rudder pedal, or the linkage between the left pedal and the rudder.)

Could this be pure coincidence? Could this be a psychological trick, helping to put people off due to the connection of the word "left" with "sinister"? Could it be that left sounds more convincing than right, since right is not wrong?

I'm dizzy with searching through but it seems there are 11 rudder probs now