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

Vauban

klint wrote: »

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?

I think you have the gist of it - some reserve time needs to be built in, but the court refused to be prescriptive on what this should be. It is of some help, but not much - in my view.

Mark2spark

I agree with Vauban. The court won't commit to saying that a two hour turn around time needs to be part of the timetable.
IMO that's because larger fleets of aircraft are available to the likes of BA, EJ, RA, and therefore a 'spare' aircraft could be more part of 'reasonable measures' to ensure the flight kept under the 3 hour threshold.
Whereas something like the Isles of Scilly flight with just one or two helicopters is a different story. Perhaps that's the extreme end of the stick but following my comments on Monarchs fleet of 'just' 33 aeroplanes, you could perhaps see that a longer turn around time for Monarch would be more applicable than the same length of time for the other airlines I've mentioned.

Mark2spark

vivim5 wrote: »

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

Well, more info is needed, ie did your plane actually take off and the 'faulty accelerometers' problem only then become apparent?
But on the basic words you've used, then it appears to be a tech issue and therefore a claim is valid.
Google for accelerometers and start reading up IMO
Then come back and tell us what else you've learned, together with a more definitive chronology of events that led to the delay.

Mark2spark

vivim5 wrote: »

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

Date of flight please?
I've added it to the OP anyway.

Mark2spark

Just letting you all know that I'm off for 2 weeks holiday at the weekend (Easyjet ) so won't be on much in the next few days or at all whilst I'm away.
Good luck to everyone that has court dates during that time.

Vauban

Mark2spark wrote: »

Just letting you all know that I'm off for 2 weeks holiday at the weekend (Easyjet ) so won't be on much in the next few days or at all whilst I'm away.
Good luck to everyone that has court dates during that time.

Haven't you just come back from holiday?;)

Mark2spark

No, that was April......... simply ages ago!!

vivim5

Sorry Mark new to all this the flight was 22/09/12
It was a flight on the 21/09/12 I believe that had the problem with the accelerometers landing at Manchester and that caused the knock on effect to our flight.
We had a delay of 4 hours 20 minutes therefore arriving into Gatwick on 23/09/12.
Monarch have rejected the claim owing to there being insufficient aircraft in their fleet at this time.
I would appreciate any advice regarding whether to pursue or not.
many thanks

Mark2spark

vivim5 wrote: »

Sorry Mark new to all this the flight was 22/09/12
It was a flight on the 21/09/12 I believe that had the problem with the accelerometers landing at Manchester and that caused the knock on effect to our flight.
We had a delay of 4 hours 20 minutes therefore arriving into Gatwick on 23/09/12.
Monarch have rejected the claim owing to there being insufficient aircraft in their fleet at this time.
I would appreciate any advice regarding whether to pursue or not.
many thanks

Thanks Viv I've updated the OP.
Yes you have a valid claim. EC's only pertain to the flight concerned, the tech issue they describe isn't an EC, nor is it on your flight.
It's not your fault that Monarch don't have enough planes in their fleet, or that they run such an avaricious schedule that the turn around time doesn't allow for fixing tech issues, or that they didn't have spare parts available for a quicker fixing of the technical issue.
Yes, pursue. Write a NBA letter putting them on notice that their explanation, without proof, is unacceptable, and that you'll be proceeding to court in 14 days if they don't reconsider, where costs & interest will also be claimed.

vivim5

Many thanks Mark
I will do that and let you know what happens
Viv