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

statictom

Can not understand why MCOL set deadlines for paperwork then allow Monarch so much extra time. Submitted my Directions questionnaire on 1 Jul, the deadline being 8th July. Monarch failed to file. Checked with MCOL, they say they have been given a further 7 days. Checked yet again, and surprise surprise, Monarch have yet again failed to file the papers.
Rang today (31st Jul) and MCOL state still no receipt of forms and they may enter a judgement if not received tomorrow. I wont hold my breath.

Stuart_x

Can I claim compensation if a flight was delayed for 7 hours due to Monarch taking the plane to service another flight and then, when it returned, cancelled the flight due to the fact that it had just started to snow then claiming extraordinary circumstances. If the flight had left on time this wouldn't have happened - so Monarch operations caused the problem. They also left us in the freezing check-in area with nowhere to rest and no food/drink all night even when the rep turned up the following morning.

Vauban

Stuart_x wrote: »

Can I claim compensation if a flight was delayed for 7 hours due to Monarch taking the plane to service another flight and then, when it returned, cancelled the flight due to the fact that it had just started to snow then claiming extraordinary circumstances.

If you were delayed by more than 3 hours before the snow arrived, then I think you have a compelling case.

Stuart_x

Vauban wrote: »

If you were delayed by more than 3 hours before the snow arrived, then I think you have a compelling case.

Thanks - I tried claiming after it happened a few years back but that was before the latest rulings. They vehemently refused to pay any sort of compo because of the extraordinary circumstances stance. Even the CAA had no luck with it. How easy is it to take them to court now - can I use Small claims?

janh_2

I hope someone on here can give me a quick yes or no answer to this!

Our flight from Manchester to Malaga (ZB660) was delayed in May this year by either:

exactly 3 hours (official departure time)
or
173 minutes - 2 hours 53 minutes (official arrival time)

Delay was caused by faulty part/s.

Our plane was not fixed in time - they diverted a subsequent flight's plane to our flight, presumably purely to avoid this 3-hour compensation thing.

Is there any point in trying to claim now?

TIA

111KAB

janh wrote: »

I hope someone on here can give me a quick yes or no answer to this!

Our flight from Manchester to Malaga (ZB660) was delayed in May this year by either:

exactly 3 hours (official departure time)
or
173 minutes - 2 hours 53 minutes (official arrival time)

Delay was caused by faulty part/s.

Our plane was not fixed in time - they diverted a subsequent flight's plane to our flight, presumably purely to avoid this 3-hour compensation thing.

Is there any point in trying to claim now?

TIA

NO - under 3 hours.

TravelBooker

You can add ZB402 to your list. Claim rejected due to ECs - cracked windscreen.

twistedmoosie

Hi there, grateful if you could add to the 'rejected' list ZB743 Malaga-London Gatwick 29/06/13, 12 hour delay.

Our group have made separate claims against our booking references and one has received a rejection response from Monarch today, just waiting to hear on the others. The explanation given is a landing gear fault in Tenerife, technical issue that could not be foreseen therefore claim rejected. Unclear if this was the flight before ours but I don't believe so as internet research has told me the flight before ours was from London, so can only assess this as the flight before that. Particularly as it is a very large plane in question and I find it unlikely such a large craft would be used between Tenerife and Malaga. Letter also stated 'exceptional circumstances' has been defined by the Regulations and in court, which I know not to be true.

I want to be sympathetic to Monarch as I am a lawyer and a moral person, and I'm sure no-one wants to see a budget airline go under from lots of compensation claims. However reading this thread and the email we received today I find this response and Monarch's general business attitude appalling given we were allowed to come to the airport due to no communication when Monarch knew hours before that our flight wasn't going to happen, given 15 Euros for 12 hours' worth of food, and not even allowed to offload from the plane to book another flight with Easyjet (who had lots of space from Malaga showing online) because the 'Monarch system was down' according to the Iberia agent at the airport. I also believe given the fault was found in Tenerife hours before that the impact could have been lessened by finding a replacement earlier.

Therefore once all responses received we will be appealing to the CAA, and the small claims court if necessary beyond that.

I would urge the Monarch management if they ever read this thread to consider their business practices. An aging fleet and cavalier attitude to delays with no spare planes and plenty of bad press does not a profitable airline make.

111KAB

twistedmoosie wrote: »

Therefore once all responses received we will be appealing to the CAA, and the small claims court if necessary beyond that.

As a solicitor you should realise the CAA are about as useful as a chocolate teapot and you may as well commence your small claims application now.

The_Wingco

Martin85 wrote: »

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is today updating passengers about when airlines are liable to pay them compensation following cancellations and long delays. Today’s update follows new European Commission (EC) guidelines.

The guidelines clarify when a delay or cancellation should generally be considered to not be an airline’s fault (so called ‘extraordinary circumstances’). Airlines have to compensate passengers when flights are cancelled within two weeks of departure or arrive more than three hours late, but only if the issue was within the airline’s control.
Until now, there has not been agreement on which circumstances are considered extraordinary and which are considered to be within an airline’s control. Following close cooperation between European regulators, engagement with technical experts and discussion with the airline industry, yesterday’s publication of the EC list should allow passengers to have a better idea if disruption they face could lead to compensation, and should also speed up the process of assessing and paying claims.

Having just checked out the CAA's list of circumstances which are NOT Extraordinary, specifically paragraphs 21-26 (Unexpected flight safety shortcomings), it seems at first glance to give Monarch a perfect get-out. In my case the aircraft had actually left the stand for take-off when the captain announced that a fault had been detected and returned us to the terminal, where we festered for another 10 hours. How can the layman judge whether the failure of a component is down to negligence/lack of maintenance?
These new guidelines just seem to muddy the waters and instil doubt in the minds of those of us considering action.