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

nicka99

blondmark wrote: »

Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes



Yes (unless you enjoy the hassle)

I feel like the Churchill dog

thanks very much - Ill get form filling and see what happens.
Nick

LBD

Oh dear I have been banned from posting on the Monarch web site.....

romanby1

LBD wrote: »

Oh dear I have been banned from posting on the Monarch web site.....

Do you mean the Monarch Airlines site? If so why?
You could try a pseudonym.

Vauban

LBD wrote: »

Oh dear I have been banned from posting on the Monarch web site.....

Oh LBD - you are clearly a naughty woman!

Mark2spark

klint wrote: »

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-203_en.htm

I think a key sentence is:

"A threshold of three hours is in most cases too short for spare parts or replacement aircraft to be flown in, especially for technical failures at an airport away from a carrier's bases."

This implies that technical failures are never extraordinary circumstances, since, if they were, there would be no compensation anyway.

That's the one Klint.

So, the 'new' guidelines from the CAA, dated April 2013, are merely suggestions from the CAA (funded by the airlines) to the EU's press release of March 2013, as to what they (the airlines) would like the definitions of EC's to be.
So, no new guidelines or facts of law at this moment in time.

Mark2spark

433Barbara wrote: »

If this proposal does go through it will help and hinder a lot of people...

May be a silly 'crystal ball' question but:

Any speculation as to when this proposal may go ahead?
If/when it did go ahead, would flights prior to the new proposal be judged/ruled under the new ruling?

There was a further statement at the time, and it was thought that it would/might be introduced next year, which would mean implementation the following year, ie 2015.
Lot's of T's to cross and i's to dot in between that

Mark2spark

LBD wrote: »

Hi Mark, nice to see you back do you want a copy of the skeleton arguement?;);)

Hi LBD, i've been back over a week now but was straight back to work to catch up.
A couple of hours spare today

Yes please btw

Mark2spark

LBD wrote: »

Ah but what if you are still in the uk and more so if you are at their HQ and they have to have the parts taxied from other airports....do you think the 3 hour rule would still apply?:j:j

The intention is to give them 5 hours to fix it, even when at home base.
The idea being that no further excuses can apply if 5 hours can't be adhered to. Plenty of time to organise a spare plane by then.

Of course, the airlines will have to take it on board that this concept has to be pre conceived, and that a plan is actually in place for the purposes of overcoming inherent tech problems that arise almost daily, certainly weekly.
Reasonable measures and all that...

ionuttd

This is the response I got from Monarch by email...can you please advise what to do next,really want to pursue this as the flight was delayed by more than 9 hrs,yes we we're given 2 vouchers of £10 each(me and my partner) but that doesn't compensate in any way as we lost one whiole day of our holiday, we reached Rhodes at midnight and reached hotel at 1:30 pm...

Don't really know what to do next.

Many thanks in advance
John

''Dear .......

Re: MON7014 London Gatwick to Rhodes 09th May 2012

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a partial instrument failure while en route to Palma on its previous flight. This prevented the aircraft from returning to London Gatwick as there was low visibility at the airport. The flight was diverted to Manchester where the instrument was replaced. Having completed repairs, the flight continued to London Gatwick and thus incurred the delay to the scheduled time of departure of your flight. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to transfer passengers to an alternative aircraft from within our fleet.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

Yours sincerely

Hayley Taylor
EU Claims
Monarch Airlines
Tel : 01582 531712''

Vauban

ionuttd: read the FAQs on page one. Everything you need is there.