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

ilovemydebts

Just got an email for my outward flight
MON5238 Gatwick to Luxor 07 July 2008,
cheque for 507.98 within 21 days just waiting for homeward case now.

Vauban

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Here's another useful resource for those building a case.

If you want to know how Monarch compare to other carriers on your route for the month or year you were delayed

www.caa.co.uk/punctuality‎

has all the statistics you could ever require to a quite extraordinary level of detail.

Invaluable for those trying to prove that Monarch's record for 'taking all reasonable measures' and resolving delays is not what it should be.

And for those of us who hate excel, here are the same stats in an even handier format: http://www.flightontime.info/latest/latest.html

You'll see that for the latest monthly stats available, Monarch finished bottom of te UK carriers with just 61% of their flights on time (a whole 20% lower than the industry average). And for their chater services it's worse: just 51% of their flights are on time. Now that is something I find extraordinary!

LBD

Phew at long last here it is...

Points 1 to 4 the same….(point 2, they already have tickets and boarding passes as well ans onboard meals)
5) The defendant submits that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Claimants Flight (G-OZBX) had a #2 engine HP Fuel Valve Fault on the 2nd. Engineers attended but could nto find any fault. The aircraft was despatched to depart when during taxi the same fault message appeared and the aircraft had to return to stand (at 4 am on arrival we were told of the delay) Engineers were required to undertake immediate troubleshooting to identify the problem. The line engineers carried out troubleshooting as per the Troubleshoot8ing Manual and swapping the Engine Interface Units which did nto solve the problem. They then replaced the start switch which also never fixed the fault. The next step in the troubleshooting recommendation was to replace the HMU ( hydro Mechanical Unit). The defendant submits that the HMU is flight critical and governs fuel for the throttle. As such the aircraft was declared unserviceable until the HMU was replaced and checked to ensure proper fitment.
This is what their original rejection was
Our records show that upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve fault. Engineers attended the aircraft and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton via taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.
6) The Defendant submits that HMUs are notoriously hard to replace due to the position and limited access. The HMU on this aircraft is mounted on the gearbox on the bottom of the engine under the cowlings, surrounded by pipes. As such the area is difficult to access.
7. In an attempt to minimise the Claimant’s delay,the Defendant offloaded the Claimant’s flight onto the first available aircraft in the Defendant’s fleet (GOZBG). This aircraft operated its morning flight as scheduled from Gatwick and then positioned up from Gatwick to operate the claimant’s flights. The Defendant is a smaller airline with 33 aircraft in its fleet, as such it does not have spare aircraft that it can utilise when one is take out of service unexpectedly. The Defendant submits that this option caused the least disruption and delay to the Claimant’s flight in comparison to offloading onto an alternative carrier.
9. The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia) where the court held that “technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control”. Moreover the court held ‘the resolution of a technical problem caused by the failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an sir carriers activity’ The defendant submits that the fault was not as a result of failure to maintain the aircraft and was in fact beyond its control
10) Furthermore the Defendants submits that it satisfies the sencon limb of the test of Wallentin. Namely’ even if it had deployed all its resuources in terms of staff or equiptment and the financial means at its disposal, it would nto have be able to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with whioch it was confronted, from leading to the delay. The defendantsubmits that by offloading the claimiants flight onto the first available aircraft within its fleet, it took all reasonable measures within its power to avoid and at best minimise the delay to the Claimants flights.
11.The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

12. The Defendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

13. The Defendant admits that the Claimant has an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true to the best of its belief and knowledge.

LBD

Points 1 to 4 the same….(point 2, they already have tickets and boarding passes as well ans on board meals

5) The defendant submits that the aircraft scheduled to operate the Claimants Flight (G-OZBX) had a #2 engine HP Fuel Valve Fault on the 2nd. Engineers attended but could nto find any fault. The aircraft was despatched to depart when during taxi the same fault message appeared and the aircraft had to return to stand (at 4 am on arrival we were told of the delay) Engineers were required to undertake immediate troubleshooting to identify the problem. The line engineers carried out troubleshooting as per the Troubleshoot8ing Manual and swapping the Engine Interface Units which did nto solve the problem. They then replaced the start switch which also never fixed the fault. The next step in the troubleshooting recommendation was to replace the HMU ( hydro Mechanical Unit). The defendant submits that the HMU is flight critical and governs fuel for the throttle. As such the aircraft was declared unserviceable until the HMU was replaced and checked to ensure proper fitment.

This is what their original rejection was

Our records show that upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve fault. Engineers attended the aircraft and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton via taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.

6) The Defendant submits that HMUs are notoriously hard to replace due to the position and limited access. The HMU on this aircraft is mounted on the gearbox on the bottom of the engine under the cowlings, surrounded by pipes. As such the area is difficult to access.

7. In an attempt to minimise the Claimant’s delay,the Defendant offloaded the Claimant’s flight onto the first available aircraft in the Defendant’s fleet (GOZBG). This aircraft operated its morning flight as scheduled from Gatwick and then positioned up from Gatwick to operate the claimant’s flights. The Defendant is a smaller airline with 33 aircraft in its fleet, as such it does not have spare aircraft that it can utilise when one is take out of service unexpectedly. The Defendant submits that this option caused the least disruption and delay to the Claimant’s flight in comparison to offloading onto an alternative carrier.

8) the same

9. The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia) where the court held that “technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control”. Moreover the court held ‘the resolution of a technical problem caused by the failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an sir carriers activity’ The defendant submits that the fault was not as a result of failure to maintain the aircraft and was in fact beyond its control

10) Furthermore the Defendants submits that it satisfies the sencon limb of the test of Wallentin. Namely’ even if it had deployed all its resuources in terms of staff or equiptment and the financial means at its disposal, it would nto have be able to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with whioch it was confronted, from leading to the delay. The defendantsubmits that by offloading the claimiants flight onto the first available aircraft within its fleet, it took all reasonable measures within its power to avoid and at best minimise the delay to the Claimants flights.

11.The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

12. The Defendant submits that it is not liable to Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

13. The Defendant admits that the Claimant has an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true to the best of its belief and knowledge :T:T:beer::beer:

Mark2spark

Further to Vauban's excellent reply to friend of bill, an observation from me.
IMO it might be worthwhile inserting some wording into the reply that challenges this 'small airline, only 33 planes' bit.
I'm thinking along the lines of pointing the finger at Monarch, saying that the airline runs an avaricious flight schedule that does not allow it to comply with EU261 in cases of last minute tech issues, - precisely what the ruling has been bought in to guard against.

I can't think of good wording for that at the moment.

I've been extremely busy in my regular work of late and I now only pop on now and again to keep up with on going court cases.
Best wishes to all.

Mark2spark

LBD, very similar defence to the friend of bill post then? (2 pages back)

Mark2spark

4poc wrote: »

Having emailed Greek CAA with full details of my delayed flight at the begining of April and chasing them last week, i received today this email:

As i've said several times before, all of this involving various CAA or other national bodies, is a waste of time.
Even if they agree with you, there is nothing legally binding for Monarch to pay up on.
No fines, no punishment, nothing.
So the advice is;
Commence your claim with the claim form.
Wait 14 - 28 days, whatever you want, and then write back with NBA/LBA, irrespective of not having had a reply.
2 weeks after that, commence a court claim.

They don't understand any other language.

Mark2spark

LBD wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I have been away for the past two weeks, and have come home to Monarchs lovely defence.... am going to have a go at posting it...


ok not working.... not sure how to post the scanned copy without having to retype it all.

For future reference, another way is to upload the scan as a picture onto a generic site such as Photobucket and share that way, you could share the link via PM then as well if you don't want it to be completely in view of the public eye.

Mark2spark

ilovemydebts wrote: »

Just got an email for my outward flight
MON5238 Gatwick to Luxor 07 July 2008,
cheque for 507.98 within 21 days just waiting for homeward case now.

Added to OP

friendofbillw2

Mark2spark wrote: »

Further to Vauban's excellent reply to friend of bill, an observation from me.
IMO it might be worthwhile inserting some wording into the reply that challenges this 'small airline, only 33 planes' bit.
I'm thinking along the lines of pointing the finger at Monarch, saying that the airline runs an avaricious flight schedule that does not allow it to comply with EU261 in cases of last minute tech issues, - precisely what the ruling has been bought in to guard against.

I can't think of good wording for that at the moment.

I've been extremely busy in my regular work of late and I now only pop on now and again to keep up with on going court cases.
Best wishes to all.

One of the better ways to challenge this 'small airline only 33 planes' bit might be to point out that according to several respected websites, Monarch have 38 planes. They give their registration numbers too.

'Not even knowing how many planes they have rather calls into question the rest of the Defendant's witness statement, does it not your honour?'