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

bazaar_2

just had another peek, sections 26 - 28 look interesting, especially at 28 where it states
"the reasonable air carrier must organise its resources in good time to provide for some reserve time, so as to be able, if possible, to operate that flight once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. If, in such a situation, an air carrier does not, however, have any reserve time, it cannot be concluded that it has taken all reasonable measures as provided for in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004."

and later on it goes on to say that the airline must make a reserve time to ensure minimal delay. It doesnt say how much, but it is there in item 35.
So the question must surely be that the airline prove that they included a minimum reasonable amount of time to ensure any delay, no matter how long, in EC was included in their flight schedules.
So Im now wondering if this would shoot down (pardon the pun) any defences where the airlines state a 'knock on ' delay.

OK, im going for a coffee.

Star9272

I have 3 claims at various stages but its funny the EC delays have all been on the return journey to the UK.

111KAB

Star9272 wrote: »

I have 3 claims at various stages but its funny the EC delays have all been on the return journey to the UK.

Stands to reason really as Monarch do not have the facilities outside the UK to look after/service/repair their old planes so generally they have to fly out engineers from the UK hence their delays are 3 hours +.

Star9272

111KAB wrote: »

Stands to reason really as Monarch do not have the facilities outside the UK to look after/service/repair their old planes so generally they have to fly out engineers from the UK hence their delays are 3 hours +.

Is that fact?

Then what reasonable measures have they taken risking stranded passengers abroad ?

klint

You'd think, if the airlines had sense, they'd have reciprocal agreements with foreign airlines to use each other's engineers (if they use the same aircraft types, which many do) to avoid delays to their customers.

bazaar_2

Star9272 wrote: »

Is that fact?

Then what reasonable measures have they taken risking stranded passengers abroad ?

TAH DAH, penny dropping noise to follow

111KAB

klint wrote: »

You'd think, if the airlines had sense, they'd have reciprocal agreements with foreign airlines to use each other's engineers (if they use the same aircraft types, which many do) to avoid delays to their customers.

Not always possible as most of the airlines lease and do not own the plane - it is the leasing firms that insist on a certain engineer carrying out the work to comply with the lease terms so as to 'protect' their investment.

111KAB

Star9272 wrote: »

Is that fact?

Then what reasonable measures have they taken risking stranded passengers abroad ?

No reasonable measures and obviously from the posts on this forum they are often leaving passengers stranded abroad. Monarch have the worst record as 3% of their flights are delayed over 3 hours therefore 180,000 passengers a year are entitled to compensation so over the 6 year rule over 1 million passengers.

See flight stats here > http://www.flightontime.info/

Mark2spark

TravelBooker wrote: »

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

twistedmoosie wrote: »

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

Sorry Guys, I'm no longer updating the OP for further flight rejections, as it serves little point.
The idea of it in the early days, where people were waiting 12 weeks or more to just get a reply from Monarch, meant it was worth doing. But now only court success' are worth knowing. We know that Monarch are going to dismiss over 90% of claims at first instance for alleged EC's. But you have to claim first before going NBA and court. The fact that someone else/that flight has already been rejected doesn't help.

ArianSandra

Just received Monarch's response to my NBA. Briefly, they are (surprise, surprise) satisfied with their reliance on extraordinary circumstances because "The European Commission has recently published a guideline list of Extraordinary circumstances and according to that list any technical defect which become apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight is considered an Extraordinary circumstance.”


Apparently my plane “suffered from a right hand PRV (pressure regulating valve) fault before the outbound sector, which meant that it could not operate in icing conditions therefore PRV change was required.” Would it be reasonable to contend under Wallentin that a PRV fault is inherent in the airline’s normal operation?


And any help with this virtually unintelligible paragraph would be much appreciated:
“I also realise that you feel that we cannot maintain the extraordinary defence for your claim as it was reactionary to the PRV fault. If one has regard to recital 15 of Regulation 261/2004 as a whole, it clearly states that, in the context of a delay or cancellation, extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where an event gives rise to the delay or cancellation of one or more flights by an aircraft even though all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid the delay or cancellation. In context therefore, this recital to the Regulation clearly contemplates the possibility that reactionary delays and/or cancellations may be covered by extraordinary circumstances.” :rotfl: