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

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

Well it's not quite categorical, as it says two things:

In the definitions section of the regulation, it defines the "operating air carrier" as



My reading of this would be that if you booked with Thomson, and they in turn contracted Monarch, then Monarch are the "operating air carrier", and thus liable. That's certainly what Thomson will argue.

However, in the Regulations preamble, para 7 it says:



To my mind, this means that if the flight was scheduled to be operated by Thomson, and at the last minute they "wet leased" a Monarch plane and crew, Thomson are still liable for compensation payments under the regulation, not Monarch.

I apologise that this is slightly confusing. The wording of the regulation gives both the airlines room for wriggling out of their responsibilities. Whose responsible depends upon the circumstances of how/when Monarch were contracted. I still think the tell tale may be the flight number under which you flew - was it TOM or MON/ZB?

Vauban it was TOM

Vauban

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Vauban it was TOM

Then i would write to Thomson to an NBA letter, to say that the regulation holds them liable (preamble para 7) and that you will commence legal action within 14 days if they do not offer satisfaction.

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

Then i would write to Thomson to an NBA letter, to say that the regulation holds them liable (preamble para 7) and that you will commence legal action within 14 days if they do not offer satisfaction.

Vauban, ok i will write back to Thomson & quote that.

whats an NBA letter thought? (sorry if thats a stupid question)

Many thanks

greeneyedlad

Vauban wrote: »

Then i would write to Thomson to an NBA letter, to say that the regulation holds them liable (preamble para 7) and that you will commence legal action within 14 days if they do not offer satisfaction.

Vauban, ok i will write back to Thomson & quote that.

Notice Before Action letter

Many thanks

Mark2spark

Vauban wrote: »

I am no expert, but I definitely agree with this. Unfortunately, there is no European judgement that says explicitly that knock on effects don't count. But it is clear from the broader definitions of Wallentin, Sturgeon - and in the text of the Regulation itself that they don't (eg references to "the flight concerned" for meteorological delays, "particular aircraft on a particular day", etc). Stick to the solid stuff!

Just an observation. Some judges might interpret that as being an aircraft having a problem on a previous sector, of the days schedule.
I'm just saying that *you* (people going to court) have to have your paperwork clear cut.

romanby1

Centipede100 wrote: »

I don't share your enthusiasm that Finnair v Lassooy is relevant to a delay or cancellation. The case concerned a denied boarding event and until or unless the ECJ carry the same argument through a case involving delay/cancellation (and for the record, I am certain that the same answer would be provided), then it would be an easy argument for an airline to say the case is irrelevant IMO.

Stick to Sturgeon, Wallentin-Hermann as these cases are your best winning strategies.

I have been following the posts on this link as my case a previous flight did not arrive on time making our flight late taking off.
The ruling in Case C-22/11is :-
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
1. The concept of ‘denied boarding’, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons.
2. Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.
The second paragraph to my thinking means the airline cannot transfer a problem what ever it is on an earlier flight to a later flight which is what happened in my case.
I am also relying on Wallentin and Surgeon.

JPears

Unfortunately Romanby1, this particular case dealt with denied boarding only. Whilst reg 261/2004 does effectively regard dealys, cancellatiosn and denied boarding on similar terms, there is no case law as such for knock on effects when considering delays.
Unfortunately it will require another precedent setting case to establish this as fact.
I am unsure whether or not to include the Finnair case in court tomorrow.

romanby1

JPears wrote: »

Unfortunately Romanby1, this particular case dealt with denied boarding only. Whilst reg 261/2004 does effectively regard dealys, cancellatiosn and denied boarding on similar terms, there is no case law as such for knock on effects when considering delays.
Unfortunately it will require another precedent setting case to establish this as fact.
I am unsure whether or not to include the Finnair case in court tomorrow.

In our case we were denied boarding for over 4 hours and the plane we flew on was not the plane that had the problem.

Vauban

romanby1 wrote: »

In our case we were denied boarding for over 4 hours and the plane we flew on was not the plane that had the problem.

Denied boarding means that you are not allowed on the aircraft when you had a ticket and that it subsequently took off taking others - but not you - with it.

I'm not lawyer, but I understand one of the reasons for the Finnair judgement was that to allow to the airline to apply ECs to a denied boarding flight would be to permit discrimination between two sets of passengers - those allowed onto the aircraft and those not. This line of reasoning doesn't apply to delayed or cancelled flights: none of the passengers are discriminated against because they are all delayed or cancelled equally!

romanby1

Vauban wrote: »

Denied boarding means that you are not allowed on the aircraft when you had a ticket and that it subsequently took off taking others - but not you - with it.

I'm not lawyer, but I understand one of the reasons for the Finnair judgement was that to allow to the airline to apply ECs to a denied boarding flight would be to permit discrimination between two sets of passengers - those allowed onto the aircraft and those not. This line of reasoning doesn't apply to delayed or cancelled flights: none of the passengers are discriminated against because they are all delayed or cancelled equally!

I see your point in that particular case but the wording in the judgement
Quote
Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

In our case we were denied boarding at the scheduled time for take off and another plane was scheduled to be our flight but the same Flight No.

I think the operative word is rescheduling.

It is obvious that a problem with another aircraft on a different route in a defendants flight cannot be tranferred to later flight with a separate flight No and route.

The reason being the airlines are scheduling too many flights with too few aircraft.

The whole point of 261/2004 is the European Parliament attempting to make the airlines delay passengers less and penalise them if they do.