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

Al1972

Hi - Thanks for the responses so far! This is the extract taken from the Aviation Herald..

'A Monarch Airlines Airbus A300-600, registration G-MONR performing flight ZB-4952 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt), was enroute at FL350 about 80nm north of Split (Croatia) about 2 hours into the flight when the crew descended the aircraft to FL250, turned around and returned to Manchester after a windshield cracked. The airplane landed safely in Manchester about 4.5 hours after departure.

The flight was postponed to the next day, the incident aircraft reached Sharm el Sheikh with a delay of 24 hours.'

No mention of bird strike or bad weather in the report, assuming it was temp/alt related. I happened to be looking out of the window during this time and noticed that we had turned around as the sun was on the wrong side, my son's packet of crisps had inflated to about 2 or three times there normal size and we dropped a fair bit of altitude pdq! I aint the quickest but i knew something wasn't right :-) Not the best start to a 7 day holiday!

111KAB

Al1972 - Page one has at least 2 Monarch flights where windscreens were replaced at Sharm. You were as you say half way into your flight so if it could fly back to Manchester it could have flown to Sharm. Monarch took the decision to get the screen replaced in UK for their convenience and not that of their passengers IMO. Do you know what happened to the 24 hour delayed (I presume) passengers on ZB4953 the return flight?

111KAB

Actually radio interview with moi today at 5.15pm on BBC Hereford and Worcester .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcherefordandworcester not sure if I will have time to listen as off for a haircut for the TV article. Not sure what responses Monarch have given to either programme, if any.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Actually radio interview with moi today at 5.15pm on BBC Hereford and Worcester .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcherefordandworcester not sure if I will have time to listen as off for a haircut for the TV article. Not sure what responses Monarch have given to either programme, if any.

You are such a media tart, Mr.111KAB!:rotfl:

111KAB

Centipede100 wrote: »

You took the words right outta my mouth!

I know! I will need a holiday after this lot - do you know any good airlines? :rotfl:

4poc

I am glad i waited 1 more day as defence from Monarch came in today, although it was signed by group lawyer on 31 May (very last day!).
It is very similar to friendofbill2 (post 1905) but they have gone to the trouble of changing the tech problem to fit mine (hehe), which to reiterate was not on my flight Corfu to Gatwick but on approach into Faro. I believe that Monarch did not in 2008 (nor do) have Faro - Corfu route,so i estimate that at least this was on third previous flight sector and as our flight was due 6:30 am, it also makes it a day before. But it would not surprise me if it was the week before as Monarch would still have the audacity of still defending it!

As Monarch are really pushing me further by filing defence on last day and court sending it 10 days later, i would so love to win this case. I have noted advice given when compiling statement (Vauban's 1909 tks) , but would appreciate extra pointers on 1)not on my flight but on at least 3rd previous sector, 2) day before (presume), 3) they had another flight Corfu - Gatwick about 3 hours into our delay (have flight number too) but they refused to even check if they had seats for our family with three young children - point being that they had not exhausted second limb of the regulation. Or if they had used that plane, then the passengers on that flight would possibly not been delayed by more than 3 hours, they'd rather delay our flight by 7.5 hrs! Plus i could see Easyjet planes on tarmac...

Sorry this post is long, but any help given is mostly appreciated...pm me with copy of your defence if similar case or other help especially with related to details of my case as above....

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: xxxxx

XXXX XXXXX & OTHERS Claimant

And

MONARCH AIRLINES Ltd Defendant

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant was at all material times acting in the capacity of an airline carrier for the purpose of these proceedings.

2. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to whether he was actually on the said flight XXX from Corfu to Gatwick.

3. Subject to paragraph 2 of this Defence, the Defendant admits that the Claimant’s flight was delayed.

4. The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all. The Defendant intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances as provided under EU Regulation 261/2004.

5. The Claimant’s flight was originally scheduled to operate on (GMONC) however during the aircraft’s final approach into Faro, Portugal a leak developed with the left bled duct. The Captain also advised that the left leading edge was open. Upon landing it was discovered by engineers that the left hand bleed duct had completely ruptured in flight. The defendant submits that this is a flight safety issue and as such was forced to ground the aircraft until the fault was rectified.

6. Bleed air ducts produce warm air from the engine and heat the wings inflight. The leading edge of the wing will build up ice during flight as a result of the extremely cold temperatures. Thus it is crucial that no ice builds up as it will affect the ability of the aircraft to stay airborne. Accordingly the Defendant was required to undertake immediate engineering work on the aircraft. In an attempt to minimise the delay to the claimant’s flight the defendant offloaded the claimant’s flight onto the first available aircraft within its fleet. The defendant submits that it is a smaller airline and as such only has 33 aircrafts in its fleet. Accordingly it does not have spare aircraft on the ground when one is taken out of service unexpectedly.

7. The Defendant submits that it has a full defence to the Claimant’s claim under Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 which states ‘an operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation (delay) is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.’

8. 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 air carrier’s activity’. The Defendant submits that the fault with the bleed duct was not as a result of failure to maintain the aircraft. On the contrary the ducts are constantly monitored as they have overheat detectors and pressure sensors. If either goes below beyond the allowable limits there is a warning flagged in the cockpit. The defendant submits therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact e/ordinary and clearly unpreventable.

9. Moreover the defendant intends to rely upon the fact that the aircraft had previously completed its previous flying sectors without such a fault arising. 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 materialised.

10. Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin. 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 fault with the duct 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.

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.

XXXX XXXXX

[signature]

Group Lawyer

Monarch Airlines Ltd

klint

Mark2spark wrote: »

Yes, but that was heard all the way through to the European Court.
The cases that are hitting the UK courts now, such as 111KAB's, are County Court, and the small claims track.
There's a difference, it's not High Court, and doesn't set a precedent.

Sorry, I'm confused. My original post was to ask whether Wallentin's case set a precedent (it did, didn't it?) And Wallentin's case involved a single claimant claiming on behalf of multiple passengers. So doesn't this set a precedent that county court judges must follow, i.e. they must allow someone to make a claim in their own name but on behalf of their whole family?

Mark2spark

klint wrote: »

Sorry, I'm confused. My original post was to ask whether Wallentin's case set a precedent (it did, didn't it?) And Wallentin's case involved a single claimant claiming on behalf of multiple passengers. So doesn't this set a precedent that county court judges must follow, i.e. they must allow someone to make a claim in their own name but on behalf of their whole family?

Well Wallentins case was heard up to ECJ 4th Chamber, so technically it could be appealed to Grand Chamber, but as the GC referred to it in the Sturgeon case it would be a waste of time,as the GC are referring to it as done and dusted, with no room for appeal.
So, a precedent it is.

111KAB

Firstly do not worry about your claim with Monarch or indeed any other airline. If you are reading this there is a good chance you are in the 'right' and your main concern is the thought of court action so here is my scenario which is probably the same for a lot of you ....

Following the ruling from the EC in October 2012 that flight delays over 3 hours were to be included for compensation I submitted my claim to Monarch Airlines They refused to consider so an initial hearing was held on 4th April 2013 which was attended by Counsel for Monarch Airlines and this resulted in another hearing (due to Monarch lack of information at the first hearing) on 4th June 2013 which was again attended by Counsel for Monarch Airlines.

Monarch Airlines defence and skeleton argument centred on a hydraulic failure on the incoming aircraft to collect my wife and I from Palma airport and in assessing whether the fault was an extraordinary circumstance they provided a witness statement from their engineer in order to try to prove that the part had no history of failure and that a replacement part had to be obtained from Germany.
Monarch Airlines also relied on the EC case Wallentin-Herman v Alitalia paragraphs 24 & 25, in that the aircraft had had regular maintenance, and because the fault was detected outside of regular maintenance and was not because of poor maintenance, then the defect could not be considered as inherent with the normal operations of the airline.
My case was that technical faults with aircraft are inherent in the airline business and as such contingency plans for short term supply of parts and / or replacement aircraft, either by contract, hire or their own aircraft availability should be in place and that not 'all reasonable measures' had been taken to provide me with the contracted/booked service.
The District Judge agreed with my claim and found against Monarch Airlines as defendant and I have now received the Judgment Order today and await receipt of the £650 by 24th June 2013.

So to all of you battling with Monarch Airlines (and others) don't be put off by their prevarication and intimidation, if you get no positive response from them to your claim after giving them sufficient opportunity and time, just progress the matter to the County Court.

But you must be motivated and prepared to devote the time and effort into seeing the matter through.

Vauban

I think this is top-notch advice from 111KAB - and I can add nowt further to it. But let me pick up on the point about multiple claimants and precedents.

I am not a lawyer, but I think we risk conflating two separate things: principles of law, with court case management. Whether a case can have multiple claimants - or needs a separate action for each - is less a matter of law. Rather it is largely up to the judge to determine what is appropriate for the case. I think most judges will be amenable to wrapping up a family's claim in one action, as it creates less work for all concerned, but I suspect it is at their discretion. A letter from the other parties mandating you to act on their behalf is probably helpful to this end. That the European Court allowed Mrs. Wallentin to claim on behalf of her family sets no legal precedent in my (inexpert) view.

But THIS IS MOSTLY A MOOT POINT!! Because if you get a judgement from the court that your flight is eligible for compensation, and the airlines do not appeal, it is impossible to see how they would credibly resist subsequent applications for compensation from passengers on the same flight - if they presented a copy of the judgement. True, you might need to threaten reopening legal proceedings if the airline were being really dumb, but your position will be very, very secure. So it's a pain possibly if the judge doesn't allow a group action, but it doesn't much change the price of fish. In my view.