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

D-MAC

Oh well

GothicMaiden

russetred wrote: »

Monarch tried phoning the court to get an extension but had to settle my claim in full with interest at 8% plus court fees. We estimate that to come to just over £3400.They have a month to pay by cheque and for it to clear

Well done, Mr Russetred!! Hope you have now recovered enough to plan another holiday with your compensation money. Fancy Monarch hoping to fob you off with so little! Way to go!! :T:beer::T

russetred

GothicMaiden wrote: »

Well done, Mr Russetred!! Hope you have now recovered enough to plan another holiday with your compensation money. Fancy Monarch hoping to fob you off with so little! Way to go!! :T:beer::T

Thanks but its Mrs Russetred. We are leaving today to fly down to London to get a flight to Mexico tomorrow, obviously not Monarch!

Really looking forward to deciding where to go with our compensation. Family conference on the beach with large coconut margaritas sounds about right. :j

I hope all goes well for those going down the court route. Remember stand firm.

GothicMaiden

russetred wrote: »

Thanks but its Mrs Russetred. We are leaving today to fly down to London to get a flight to Mexico tomorrow, obviously not Monarch!

Really looking forward to deciding where to go with our compensation. Family conference on the beach with large coconut margaritas sounds about right. :j

I hope all goes well for those going down the court route. Remember stand firm.

My apologies, Ma'am. Glad to hear there are other ladies fighting the good fight. Enjoy your margaritas!

4poc

I hope all goes well for those going down the court route. Remember stand firm.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your well-wishes; have sent you a pm; any chance to forward copy of your statement? As mentioned before almost identical situation to yours...only if you have time before your hols that is...:)

statictom

Just got back from 2 weeks in Spain to find my awaited defence claim by Monarch.

"The defendant submits, that it is a smaller airline and as such has 33 aircraft within its fleet. Accordingly the defendant does not have spare aircraft to utilise when one is taken out of service unexpectedly and this contributed to the claimants delay as the aircraft had to be fixed and put back into service"

"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".

They go on to say they have shown they used all their financial means at their disposal by flying engineers on another carrier it had deployed all its resources an financial means to try an avoid and at best minimise the delay.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry at this pitiful excuse. We are talking about a fuse that blew in the PA System, thus preventing the captain from speaking with his crew.

I am also asked to put to strict proof that all passengers were on the flight. I did not have my tickets but have all bank statements paying for flights, pre booked seats, meals and parking at airport. I have also submitted a Data protection Act notice to Monarch asking them to declare all details held on their records for me and my family - surprise they have failed to answer, yet again. Looking forward to a day in court.

mikaelam

Hi guys,
Is anyone using Hugh at flightmole and had any luck?
I've noticed his website has been down for maintenance for quite a while now..

Mark2spark

statictom wrote: »

Just got back from 2 weeks in Spain to find my awaited defence claim by Monarch.

"The defendant submits, that it is a smaller airline and as such has 33 aircraft within its fleet. Accordingly the defendant does not have spare aircraft to utilise when one is taken out of service unexpectedly and this contributed to the claimants delay as the aircraft had to be fixed and put back into service"

Then 'all reasonable measures', with such a 'small' fleet of aircraft, would necessitate a larger turn around time window, to allow for time to overcome a problem - however unexpected that might be - that is inherent in the running of an airline, where aeroplanes have a higher degree of technical sophistication than other walks of life.

vivim5

Hi everyone Monarch have stated the above flight ZB765 was subject to "extraordinary circumstances" due to
an aircraft experiencing faulty accelerometers which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. There were insufficient aircraft within the Monarch fleet to operate your flight on time. However, in order to reduce your delay we arranged for the first available aircraft from within our flight to operate your flight.
Please can you tell me do I still have a claim for compensation? Basically I would be grateful for advice on this, from reading a lot of the postings I am getting the impression "knock on effect" does not constitute ex circs but have I misunderstood.
Many thanks

klint

Mark2spark wrote: »

Then 'all reasonable measures', with such a 'small' fleet of aircraft, would necessitate a larger turn around time window, to allow for time to overcome a problem - however unexpected that might be - that is inherent in the running of an airline, where aeroplanes have a higher degree of technical sophistication than other walks of life.

I've recently learned about the Eglitis & Ratnieks case. I hadn't heard of it until very recently, when Centipede mentioned it. Is it worth referring to it in this case?

I'm still not fully conversant with it, but the following summary seems to be relevant:

"Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end."

But later it goes on to say: "However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time" which appears to contradict what it said earlier and leaves me rather confused.

Can anyone advise?