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

howsoonisnow

Were you on MON368 Gatwick to Tobago on 11 January 2012, which was delayed at Grenada? What is *your* recollection of the stated reason for the delay?

bazaar_2

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Just read and think about this for a second.

"technical problems ARE covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which ARE NOT inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned..."

(my emphases, but a direct quote from Wallentin para 26 used in Monarch's defence)

and

"the rudder is used on each and every flight..."

So how can use of the rudder and any subsequent technical failure of the rudder possibly be anything other than "inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned"?

That is their entire 'extraordinary / exceptional circumstances' argument done away with, surely?

Precisely, so thats one point to break down their defence, then you can also ask that what contingency they had in place in the case of EC, IE, what time did they allow in case of such an incident. Its in the regulations that a 'reasonable Air Carrier' must have these contingencies in place. ( after all this is an old piece of leglislation dating back to 2004), is it not reasonable of them to at least have a plan by now?

LBD

[QUOTE=433Barbara;62745309

I appreciate that all of this information may not be needed but in light of the fact that people are not getting to see Monarch's defence at due date and that they are handed sometimes at the 11th hour would it be worthwhile?

LOVE THIS SITE :T[/QUOTE]

Monarch are submitting Defences in 99% of cases , that's how I knew what the defence was and how to counteract it.....

What theya re in some cases doing is not submitting the court ordered submission within the time frame ordered by the court...

2 totally different things.....

when they acknowledge your claim they say they will defend, they are then given a further 14 days ( 28 in all) to submit, they are doing so at that point...

iti s the stuff they are goingto rely on in court they are not, which is totally different from the defence...

Just for clarification.....lol:beer::beer:

Vauban

bazaar wrote: »

Precisely, so thats one point to break down their defence, then you can also ask that what contingency they had in place in the case of EC, IE, what time did they allow in case of such an incident. Its in the regulations that a 'reasonable Air Carrier' must have these contingencies in place. ( after all this is an old piece of leglislation dating back to 2004), is it not reasonable of them to at least have a plan by now?

I beg to disagree slightly.

The test of "all reasonable measures" only comes into play if the fault is classed as extraordinary. If the court accepts that a rudder failure is inherent in the activity of the airline, none of the subsequent stuff matters.

So the basic argument of a claimant should run:

a) the fault was not on my flight [if applicable];

In the alternative

b) the fault was not extraordinary (inherent and in control of the airline);

In the alternative

c) the airline did not take all reasonable measures (the Wallentin third question - short of intolerable sacrifice).

bazaar_2

Vauban wrote: »

I beg to disagree slightly.

The test of "all reasonable measures" only comes into play if the fault is classed as extraordinary. If the court accepts that a rudder failure is inherent in the activity of the airline, none of the subsequent stuff matters.

So the basic argument of a claimant should run:

a) the fault was not on my flight [if applicable];

In the alternative

b) the fault was not extraordinary (inherent and in control of the airline);

In the alternative

c) the airline did not take all reasonable measures (the Wallentin third question - short of intolerable sacrifice).

agreed, it is the alternatives that give you more, although I was coming from an angle to obtain more information before the defence is handed in last minute.

dxc_chappie

bazaar wrote: »

Take a look at CPR31. if youve got a court date and CPR 18

But note that for for Small Claims neither CPR 18 or 31 apply. See CPR 27.2

bazaar_2

dxc_chappie wrote: »

But note that for for Small Claims neither CPR 18 or 31 apply. See CPR 27.2

Is your claim allocated to a track yet? No, then its valid for cpr 31, also direction 27 (2) only applies subject to para 3 ,
(3) The court of its own initiative may order a party to provide further information if it considers it appropriate to do so.
Someone correct me if wrong, but in the face of such delaying tactics, it would appear reasonable to ask the defendant to clarify its position with some questions based on the vague initial defence.

tc5712

Hope this might help others?

To summarise:
I was delayed 04/06/13 on ZB812 Luton-Bodrum because ZB057 Faro-Luton earlier that day had a 'technical' fault that Monarch is claiming is an 'extraordinary circumstance'. All pretty standard stuff so far.

But wait! Here is the quote from the rejection letter on my (ZB812 - Luton - Bodrum) delayed flight, "Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate your flight had to return to stand in Faro on its previous flight, due to it developing a left and right wing leak message and a left bleed fault. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until the requisite rectification work could be completed".

Now I have been emailed by someone that is claiming for the delay on ZB057 - Faro - Luton, and I quote "Our records show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the power system used to circulate air in the cabin, during taxi to the runway for your departure. As a result, the aircraft returned to the airport stand and was subsequently declared unserviceable and unsafe to operate".

The trouble is how do I use this information?:D

romanby1

tc5712 wrote: »

Hope this might help others?

To summarise:
I was delayed 04/06/13 on ZB812 Luton-Bodrum because ZB057 Faro-Luton earlier that day had a 'technical' fault that Monarch is claiming is an 'extraordinary circumstance'. All pretty standard stuff so far.

But wait! Here is the quote from the rejection letter on my (ZB812 - Luton - Bodrum) delayed flight, "Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate your flight had to return to stand in Faro on its previous flight, due to it developing a left and right wing leak message and a left bleed fault. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until the requisite rectification work could be completed".

Now I have been emailed by someone that is claiming for the delay on ZB057 - Faro - Luton, and I quote "Our records show that the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the power system used to circulate air in the cabin, during taxi to the runway for your departure. As a result, the aircraft returned to the airport stand and was subsequently declared unserviceable and unsafe to operate".

The trouble is how do I use this information?:D

Can you not get the source of you info to give you a sworn and signed statement to that fact and submit it in your claim .

tc5712

romanby1 wrote: »

Can you not get the source of you info to give you a sworn and signed statement to that fact and submit it in your claim .

Still waiting for them to reply after I rejected their claim of extraordinary circumstances quoting Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia 3 weeks ago.

The person that has given me this information will let me have a copy of their email, as I will them.