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

bazaar_2

ArianSandra wrote: »

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:

hmm, the possibility?
theyve cherry picked what they want from the regulations.
So, 'pressure regulating valve' lets think like an engineer. How was the fault reported? Was it reported via flight deck? ( I hope so) otherwise it would have to have a regular check just like you have a service on your car. so you ask, the relevant question, what is the part number, what is the serial number of that part and when was it checked.

433Barbara

bazaar wrote: »

hmm, the possibility?
theyve cherry picked what they want from the regulations.
So, 'pressure regulating valve' lets think like an engineer. How was the fault reported? Was it reported via flight deck? ( I hope so) otherwise it would have to have a regular check just like you have a service on your car. so you ask, the relevant question, what is the part number, what is the serial number of that part and when was it checked.

Doe's anyone know if ALL of us should be asking Monarch for particulars of our EC faults that we've been given?

If this is the case, what's the difference between it being reported via flight deck or regular check and how is common Joe Bloggs to know. On top of that if they do give you the information how are we to know what to do with the information eg, Part B should be checked every 100.000 miles etc?

I was thinking (& may just me ) it was more a case of going down the line that the usual EC faults that Monarch were claiming were in fact NOT EC's.

As someone who kindly PM'd me said......

"Just ask yourself this; was my flight delayed because of extreme weather conditions, an act of terrorism or did the plane manufacturer ground every plane of that type due to a fault occuring. If as I suspect your answer is NO then Monarch are hoping that merely by telling you will not win you will believe them and go away."


Again, I'm only guessing but if I had to take for instance a garage to small claims because they didn't repair my turbo engine correctly..... would I be expected to know the in's and out's of a turbo engine and be cross referenced etc....... :eek:

friendofbillw2

ArianSandra wrote: »

"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.”

OK, here's the TRUTH.

The National Enforcement Bodies (CAA and their equivalent in each country) got together in April after much lobbying by the airlines (which tells you a lot about their independence as an 'enforcer') and put together a list of circumstances that the airlines would LIKE to be considered as Extraordinary Circumstances under Regulation EC 261/2004.

They submitted these to the European Commission who put them up on the ec.europa website... with the following heavy caveat :

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE ONLY. THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT A BINDING OPINION ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

So the document is no more than a 'wish list'. There will be test cases and, in time, an updated regulation. In the meantime the 2004 Regulation and the precedents set by Sturgeon, TUI, and most importantly, Wallentin, are...

LAW

...and that is so no matter what some tinpot little budget airline, a toothless dinosaur of a National Enforcement (that's a joke, by the way) Body, or even our beloved Saint Martin of Lewis's 'opinion' may be.

And don't be afraid to tell this to the judge if airlines are trying to admit their wish list as 'evidence' of ECs. Judges hate being lied to, and love a bit of clarity.

ang216bc

LBD wrote: »

I was lucky the judge in my case, pointed out at great length to the Barrister the new changes to the CPR rules and how tardy it was of them to attempt to exploit their position....

He was spot on with his knowledge..........basically said that both parties MUST abide by the courts instructions.....

Their defence not allowed for failing ot submit in time........served on me on the Saturday hearing ont he Monday and the same for the court....

A totally different senario to my experiance in court.

The Monarch court bundle was sent to me by email 36 hours before the court date. Their legal rep. arrived late and was then allowed by the Judge to submit a skeleton argument and a Eu Case bundle which I was given 10 minutes to read. After pointing out that under CPR rules this was not acceptable the Judge said that she could accept what she wanted. I was then asked if I was ready to continue. On stating that I was not, the case was adjourned.

From the start of the second hearing I was given the impression that the case had already been decided when the Judge asked if I had anything to say before she passed judgement even before I had even argued my case!!! I then contested the skeleton argument which included a series of short quotes from Wallentin paragraphs chosen to suit their needs.
I explained that many of these were taken out of context and that paragraphs should be read in full to determine their full and true meanings. I was told by the Judge several times to be quiet and when I was able to challenge a totally incorrect statement by the defense I was told that this was not a slanging match.

Monarch had also produced various statements from engineers and service records for the aircraft.

The Judge also stated that Monarch were a small operator and as such could not be expected to provide spare aircraft, crews at short notice etc. (I had already challenged them on wet leasing, providing spaces on other aircraft etc.)


The judgement was that the fault was a hidden defect......etc

This Judge was not for turning.

Regular contributors to the Forum have always said that it depends on the Judge on the day. I was unlucky to have had one who was unable to see through the defenses smokescreens.

I have always thought that rules were rules and everyone should abide by them. In the Legal System, perhaps not!!!

My advise to others is to continue down the Court route.Ther are many more sucesses than failures.

I came away from the hearing with my head held high. I am still convinced I was in the right and it cost them a lot more than it did me.

Next step Appeal? who knows.

NSKT

Hi All

Monarch defence received today -

1) The defendant was at all material times acting in the capacity of an airline carrier for the purpose of these proceedings.

2) The claimant is put to proof as to whether she was actually on the said flight.

3) Subject to paragaraph 2,the defendnat admits that the claimants flight was delayed.

4) The Defendant denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all and intends to rely upon the defence of extraordinary circumstances under Regulation 261/2004.

5) The aircraft scheduled to operate the claimant's flight suffered a power surge when the Ground Power unit (GPU) was fit which caused damage to the aircraft prior to the claimant's flight.The GPU powers the
aircraft when on stand when the aircraft is not being powered by the engines or Auxiliary Power Unit.

6) The Defendanat submits that upon start-up of the aircraft there was a power surge which was caused by the GPU.Consequently this surge damaged computers on-board the aircraft and the BPCU (Bus power control Unit) which controls the GPU power to the aircraft buses.The buses distribute the power around the aircarft electrical systems.
As such the aircraft was decalred unserviceable and required immediate engineering rectification.The Defendant submits that this unexpected flight safety shortcoming is an extraordinary circumstance.

7) The defendant submits that it has a full defence to the claimant's claim under Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 which states 'an operating carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with
Article 7,if it can prove that the cancellation (delay) is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken'.

8) The Defendant intends to rely upon the decison in Walletin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v.Alitalia) where the
court held that "technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extenet that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its control". Moreover the court held 'the resoultion of a technical problem caused by the failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity'.The Defendant submits that the power surge was clearly not as a result of a failure to maintain the aircraft.On the contrary the
damage was caused by a 3rd party,therefore such a fault is not inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier and is in fact extraorinary and clealrly unpredictable.

9) Furthermore the Defendant submits that it satisfies the second limb of the test of Wallentin (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia).Namely 'even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal,it would not have been able... to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted',from leading the delay.The Defendant submits it has deployed all its resources and fianancial means at its disposal to try and avoid and at best minimise the said delay.

10) The Defendant also intends to rely upon the decision of Eglitis v. Latvijas Republikas ministrija at para 35 where the ECJ held that the Regulations cannot result in airlines beingled to make intolerable sacrifices.

11) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

12) The Defendant submits that it is not liable to the Claimant for the sum pleaded or any sum at all.

13) The Defendant admits that the Claimant have an inherent right to interest subject to liability being established.

Any thoughts on how this would stand up in court and feedback will be most welcome.

111KAB

NSKT wrote: »

Any thoughts on how this would stand up in court and feedback will be most welcome.

Another load of rubbish from Morgan Mulay. Just do your research thoroughly and maybe one day she will realise that the time has come to accept the EU law and pay out for legitimate claims.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Another load of rubbish from Morgan Mulay. Just do your research thoroughly and maybe one day she will realise that the time has come to accept the EU law and pay out for legitimate claims.

Aren't the key points here that:

a) power surges are indeed inherent in the operation of the airline;

b) an assertion in para 9 that "all resources" were deployed is not actually evidenced.

433Barbara

ang216bc wrote: »

The Monarch court bundle was sent to me by email 36 hours before the court date. Their legal rep. arrived late and was then allowed by the Judge to submit a skeleton argument and a Eu Case bundle which I was given 10 minutes to read. After pointing out that under CPR rules this was not acceptable the Judge said that she could accept what she wanted. I was then asked if I was ready to continue. On stating that I was not, the case was adjourned.

From the start of the second hearing I was given the impression that the case had already been decided when the Judge asked if I had anything to say before she passed judgement even before I had even argued my case!!! I then contested the skeleton argument which included a series of short quotes from Wallentin paragraphs chosen to suit their needs.
I explained that many of these were taken out of context and that paragraphs should be read in full to determine their full and true meanings. I was told by the Judge several times to be quiet and when I was able to challenge a totally incorrect statement by the defense I was told that this was not a slanging match.

Monarch had also produced various statements from engineers and service records for the aircraft.

The Judge also stated that Monarch were a small operator and as such could not be expected to provide spare aircraft, crews at short notice etc. (I had already challenged them on wet leasing, providing spaces on other aircraft etc.)

The judgement was that the fault was a hidden defect......etc

This Judge was not for turning.

Regular contributors to the Forum have always said that it depends on the Judge on the day. I was unlucky to have had one who was unable to see through the defenses smokescreens.

I have always thought that rules were rules and everyone should abide by them. In the Legal System, perhaps not!!!

My advise to others is to continue down the Court route.Ther are many more sucesses than failures.

I came away from the hearing with my head held high. I am still convinced I was in the right and it cost them a lot more than it did me.

Next step Appeal? who knows.

So sorry for your experience , What a shame for you

Sounds like a disgraceful judge to me

I just can't get my head around the whole tardiness of Monarch............ They arrive late, they issue documents late, they give you just 10 minutes to read the bundle :mad:

WHY ARE JUDGES LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS,? :mad:

ALSO, why are judges not cutting us any flack..... for most of us, it's a case of never being in a court before, whereas the likes of Monarch are there every other day!....

Rant over...........

If anyone has any feedback re my thread 2721 I would be grateful.

Thanks

statictom

friendofbillw2;62712766]OK, here's the TRUTH.

The National Enforcement Bodies (CAA and their equivalent in each country) got together in April after much lobbying by the airlines (which tells you a lot about their independence as an 'enforcer') and put together a list of circumstances that the airlines would LIKE to be considered as Extraordinary Circumstances under Regulation EC 261/2004.

They submitted these to the European Commission who put them up on the ec.europa website... with the following heavy caveat :

Hi Have found the document on the EC. website, but can`t find a copy with the "heavy caveat" - any idea of a link which shows this. I would like to have a copy for when i go to court, just in case

Vauban

statictom wrote: »

friendofbillw2;62712766]OK, here's the TRUTH.




Hi Have found the document on the EC. website, but can`t find a copy with the "heavy caveat" - any idea of a link which shows this. I would like to have a copy for when i go to court, just in case

It there literally in red caps locks, at the top of the document. Not sure how you'd miss it ...

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf