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

maz08

Well Done 111KAB Great news you should be proud of yourself.

Really pleased for you...Happy Days!

pavr27

Hi All, is anybody aware of a court ruling that technical problems ARE and extraordinary circumstance? (as I believe some will be classed as being)

I'm in court tomorrow, and I'm just worried that perhaps in my case (based on the defence from Monarch (extracts below) perhaps this will be classed as EC as they mention regular servicing etc.

I'm particularly worried about the underlined bits that Monarch are using to suggested they maintained the aircraft and therefore the technical problem was unavoidable


5)The Claimant’s flight was originally scheduled to operate on however on the 13 October 2012 during turnaround of the aircraft at London Gatwick, the ECAM display in the cockpit showed a warning that there was a leak on the left hand side bleed in the left hand wing. The warning displayed was checked with the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and showed as a no dispatch item. Therefore the aircraft was declared unserviceable and unsafe
to fly whilst immediate engineering work began.

9) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Walletin (0549/07 WaI/entin-Hermann
circumstances—toque extent that they 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 air carrier’s activity’. The Defendant submits that duct seal failure in the left hand side wing ducting inboard was not as a result of failiure to maintain the aircraft. On the contrary the part in question where the leak was found is checked approximately every 15 weeks (or every 1000 flight hours) therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly unpreventable.

10) Moreover the Defendant intends to rely upon the fact that the aircraft had previously
completed its previous flying sector of London Gatwick to Faro back to London Gatwick without any issues. The Defendant submits that this clearly shows that the resulting delay was in fact beyond its control as the aircraft had been cleared to fly its previous sectors before the fault materlalised.

11) Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin
(C-549/O7 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia). Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted', from leading to the delay. The Defendant submits that the duct seal failure and the resulting delay were unavoidable. The Defendant submits that it has deployed all its resources and financial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.

dstainer

Centipede100 wrote: »

Whilst 111KAB is to be warmly congratulated on his success, the case will set no more precedence than did that of the success of Jeff Hallsall v Thomas Cook in Stoke earlier this year or any more than JPears failure v Jet2.com in Leeds yesterday.

There will be wins and losses on both sides as I have consistently espoused.

Agree...but what cases like this will do, is make airlines think twice before spending thousands of pounds, employing expensive lawyers to defend themselves in the more questionable of cases. They could have settled 111KAB's case for Eur500, but chose go to court and consequently must have cost them 10 times that.
The more cases like this, the more the airlines will have to play the odds and settle out of court.

Anyway... congrats 111KAB - look forward to hearing the juicy details in a publication soon :beer:

friendofbillw2

pavr27 wrote: »

Hi All, is anybody aware of a court ruling that technical problems ARE and extraordinary circumstance? (as I believe some will be classed as being)

I'm in court tomorrow, and I'm just worried that perhaps in my case (based on the defence from Monarch (extracts below) perhaps this will be classed as EC as they mention regular servicing etc.

I'm particularly worried about the underlined bits that Monarch are using to suggested they maintained the aircraft and therefore the technical problem was unavoidable


5)The Claimant’s flight was originally scheduled to operate on however on the 13 October 2012 during turnaround of the aircraft at London Gatwick, the ECAM display in the cockpit showed a warning that there was a leak on the left hand side bleed in the left hand wing. The warning displayed was checked with the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) and showed as a no dispatch item. Therefore the aircraft was declared unserviceable and unsafe
to fly whilst immediate engineering work began.

9) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decision in Walletin (0549/07 WaI/entin-Hermann
circumstances—toque extent that they 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 air carrier’s activity’. The Defendant submits that duct seal failure in the left hand side wing ducting inboard was not as a result of failiure to maintain the aircraft. On the contrary the part in question where the leak was found is checked approximately every 15 weeks (or every 1000 flight hours) therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraordinary and clearly unpreventable.

10) Moreover the Defendant intends to rely upon the fact that the aircraft had previously
completed its previous flying sector of London Gatwick to Faro back to London Gatwick without any issues. The Defendant submits that this clearly shows that the resulting delay was in fact beyond its control as the aircraft had been cleared to fly its previous sectors before the fault materlalised.

11) Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin
(C-549/O7 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia). Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted', from leading to the delay. The Defendant submits that the duct seal failure and the resulting delay were unavoidable. The Defendant submits that it has deployed all its resources and financial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.

It's just poor logical argument on their part.

While failure to maintain has been ruled as not being 'extraordinary circumstances', it does not immediately follow that a technical fault on an adequately maintained aircraft IS extraordinary circumstances.

To give it its technical name, this is an 'affirmative conclusion from a negative premise'.

The test in Wallentin is clear. To be extraordinary, it must be 'not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned' and outside its control. Whether the aircraft is properly maintained (while very worrying / criminally negligent if not!) has no bearing.

Steviek_2

Well done 111KAB you are an inspiration! And Centipede you are always so halpful and full of knowledge

klint

I agree with friendofbillw2 that it is a poor logical argument, but in the unlikely/unfortunate event that the judge disagrees, you could then ask if Monarch can prove that the part was checked at the required regular intervals (i.e. copies of maintenance logs).

Eastway01

My case against Monarch has been allocated for hearing in Luton County Court.

I initially thought this might be advantageous since the DJs there may have a better working knowledge of this subject than other places, it being Monarch's home court.

However, I have started to wonder whether there might actually be any (subconscious, of course) bias in favour of Monarch since Luton is its home court.

Any views?

111KAB

pavr27 - almost exactly the same as my case and you have to hope the Judge understands Wallentin or that you can convince him. The fact that the airline make regular inspections is a red herring. Planes are technical machines with thousands of components. From time to time (but on a regular basis) planes go tech. The outcome is that the airline have a duty to repair that problem within 3 hours and get you on your way. If they don't your delay problem becomes their expense problem. Of course a problem with an aircraft is not beyond their control. If it isn't under their control whose is it ..... Burger King?
Please don't worry but understand and rehearse Wallentin and please message me if you are unsure of any aspect.

111KAB

klint wrote: »

I agree with friendofbillw2 that it is a poor logical argument, but in the unlikely/unfortunate event that the judge disagrees, you could then ask if Monarch can prove that the part was checked at the required regular intervals (i.e. copies of maintenance logs).

Klint is right - it is ok the airline saying they do these inspections but ask for the proof. They can probably prove it but you want to be sure they are telling the truth.

JPears

and if they don't bring that evidence to court AND ask it to be admited AND you accept it then they cannot rely on it as fact, unless it is in a signed witness statement AND that witness is present for you to be abl to question.
PAV27 I will try to PM you today.