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

cart583

wish there was some way of knowing how many people had already claimed from a certain flight.

LBD

Your request has been complied with Centipede.

Mark2spark

cart583 wrote: »

wish there was some way of knowing how many people had already claimed from a certain flight.

Yes, it would be easier. But it appears that I'm the first one to have achieved a settlement (in writing, - no cheque yet! ) so determining what flights have been attended to (which I believe is more to your line of thinking, as the amount of claimants per flight is of no consequence) will take time to start compiling a list.

Perhaps some amendment to the success stories of the FAQ's is in order?
My flight:
PMI - LGW 07/10/12 No: ZB277

Mark2spark

Centipede100 wrote: »

From what I can recall Mark had the support of the Spanish NEB on his side and they had recommended that the airline pay up.

This might be Thalia's claim, or also LBD's.
I did not have any correspondence with either the CAA or the Spanish equivalent body, the NEB.

I made an initial enquiry within 48 hours of my return using the template letter, but stating that I was aware of the ruling to come on the 23 Oct, some 14 days later.
I made a second enquiry based on the template letter on the 24 Oct, suitably amended. They responded with a claim form attached to an email approx 6 days later.
The claim form was completed and sent, by recorded delivery, with all requested documentation, on 31 Oct.
I sent a LBA some 10 and a half weeks later, which allowed for the Christmas period, they had had the claim for 2 clear working months IMO. The LBA gave them 14 days to complete. The 14 days would be tomorrow. I don't believe that the LBA made any difference whatsoever though.

Mark2spark

Centipede100 wrote: »

mbyrne

Your case, shows just to what extreme lengths Monarch is going to go to defend even fairly obvious cases of delay compensation.

I say 'obvious' because in your case a pilot being ill at his home base and unable to work cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classified as 'extraordinary'. A certain level of staff sickness is an everyday occurrence and businesses mitigate against this type of event by provisioning for such. In an airline's business, standby crew are a necessity unless they are simply to cancel flights which would in itself lead to claims for compensation.

If the pilot sickness had occurred at an outstation where the availability of a replacement crew member was rather more impractical then I would suggest that the airline might have a better defence but in your case this doesn't apply.

Further to this, the amount of time that the first officer reported sick before reporting for duty, - 6 hours - also corresponds to 8 hours before the scheduled departure of the flight.
IMO it's a ridiculous claim that a replacement member of staff could not be sourced in that time period.
Court beckons.

Mark2spark

LBD wrote: »

Your request has been complied with Centipede.

Glentoran has also quoted the (amended?) post at #170 (approx) which may now need deleting for the avoidance of doubt.

glentoran99

Mark2spark wrote: »

Glentoran has also quoted the (amended?) post at #170 (approx) which may now need deleting for the avoidance of doubt.

alll sorted now

LBD

has never had any contact with Spanish authorities so it is not my case either...

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

I reiterate that I believe more claimants will be forced to court by Monarch than many of the other airlines simply by the reaction (& past history) and tone of the correspondence seen from the airline this far.

To be honest, I would welcome any correspondence - regardless of the tone. The fact that three months in I continue to have had no response from Monarch is fairly telling though.

In my case, I believe the delay of over 24 hours was caused because the incoming flight discovered that the windscreen had developed a crack, as it was preparing to leave Gatwick. Assuming this to be true (this was only what was suggested at the time; all I have is an apology letter from April suggesting "technical difficulties"), I don't accept it should have led to a 24 hour delay before we were picked up from Egypt, or that it can be classed as "extraordinary circumstances". It ought to have been within the airline's control to resolve long before then - not least as they were at a major hub airport. And all this before there is a debate about whether the crack should have been identified long before immediately before take off.

But as a party of five, for a delay over 4 hours, and from over 3,500km, this will be expensive for Monarch if they are obliged to pay up. So I anticipate having to fight for it. Which I will.

Mark2spark

I see that their facebook page is having an onslaught today from new posters.