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

Pkenty01

twistedmoosie wrote: »

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.

Yep I just received the same response twistedmoosie from Monarch. I'm going to also appeal to the Caa . Keep us informed of progress .
We also didn't get put on the next available flight but the one after so even that wasn't the right fact. As u say the airline should have had a backup plan better than 12 hours of us waiting with 3 kids having one 15 euro credit each.

111KAB

Pkenty01 wrote: »

Yep I just received the same response twistedmoosie from Monarch. I'm going to also appeal to the Caa .

Please read through entire thread and you will see on numerous posts the advise that the CAA are as useless as a chocolate teapot in assisting your claim with Monarch.

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

I don't see what you want to happen, really.

Personally I think there is a lot the airlines and particularly Monarch could do. The problem is how Monarch deal with the delay when you are at the airport and when you approach them afterwards. I could provide numerous examples (including my own experience) but take the 7 hour delay to passengers at Rome yesterday (01/09/13) - not kept informed at all and vouchers handed out not recognised by the food outlets and not a handling agent to be seen. Monarch employ these agents. Return home and you are lucky if you get a response and then hardly ever in time (I speak from mine and friends experience here) then you get a substandard response.

Aedus wrote: »

...... how does an airline differentiate between someone who had a 3 hour delay, who's just making a claim for free money, or someone who was delayed 7+ hours and it ruined a day of their holiday? They can't. Circumstances are different, but they will treat every case as the passenger trying to get money from them, sometimes they are getting back more than 10x the amount they paid for the flight in the first place, so how can you blame them?

The airlines (Monarch included) had their chance in Court (Sturgeon) to change the ruling and failed. You cannot differentiate but the remedy is with the airlines (again particularly Monarch) to ensure delays are kept to a minimum. One of Monarch's problems (and there are many) is operating a 14+ year old, average, fleet compared with the two main competitors.

Aedus wrote: »

At the end of the day airlines are a business and their goal is to make money, if every single person who was ever delayed was paid with no quibble from Airlines, many would go bust. What does that mean? The ones who do stay in business will just increase prices to make-up for the losses from the claims, and a large chunk of people won't even be able to afford to go on holiday anymore. Is that what you want to happen?

I calculate Monarch wasted more money and time on going to Court than if they had paid out for a dozen people on my flight who were delayed. I will never know how many people claimed however, to me, this does not make economic sense when coupled with the likely loss of trade from disgruntled passengers.

Your post sounds very much like someone who works or has worked for the airline industry.

statictom

Aedus wrote: »

I don't see what you want to happen, really.

I think what people want to see happen is to be treated fairly by an airline who will stoop to any length not to have to pay out. You just have to read this forum and you will find many examples of the deceit used by airlines. They will issue false information, Make up the law to suit themselves, they fail to turn up in court, they fail to conform to the Civil Procedure Rules, they fail to even pay out when ordered by the courts. The list is endless. They will resort to trying to use guidelines instead of case law. I could go on and on.
Passengers need to be protected, thus we have EC261/2004. Now over 8 years and still be abused by airlines.

Aedus

111KAB wrote: »

Personally I think there is a lot the airlines and particularly Monarch could do. The problem is how Monarch deal with the delay when you are at the airport and when you approach them afterwards. I could provide numerous examples (including my own experience) but take the 7 hour delay to passengers at Rome yesterday (01/09/13) - not kept informed at all and vouchers handed out not recognised by the food outlets and not a handling agent to be seen. Monarch employ these agents. Return home and you are lucky if you get a response and then hardly ever in time (I speak from mine and friends experience here) then you get a substandard response.



The airlines (Monarch included) had their chance in Court (Sturgeon) to change the ruling and failed. You cannot differentiate but the remedy is with the airlines (again particularly Monarch) to ensure delays are kept to a minimum. One of Monarch's problems (and there are many) is operating a 14+ year old, average, fleet compared with the two main competitors.



I calculate Monarch wasted more money and time on going to Court than if they had paid out for a dozen people on my flight who were delayed. I will never know how many people claimed however, to me, this does not make economic sense when coupled with the likely loss of trade from disgruntled passengers.

Your response sounds very much like someone who works or has worked for the airline industry.

I agree there is definitely things airlines can do to minimise delays, and the information, especially from Monarch in a delay situation is not good, probably because in most cases airport handling is provided by a 3rd party.

I mentioned before, the amount they spent on your case was probably a drop in the water for the amount of claims they may have rejected for that flight already, it makes defending it worth it in most cases, if there are few claims, they wouldn't bother.

Your assumptions are correct, I used to work for an airline, but it doesn't prevent me telling people with a genuine grievance to make a claim, I'm happy to help with claims, but it's easy to see it from one perspective and not the other, if you've worked in the industry you'd probably take a different view of the matter, which is why I talk about the morality of claims if someone is doing it seemingly just for free money.

JPears

Aedus - I realise you are playing minor devil's advocate, however the whole raison d'etre of Reg 261/2004 is to compensate the passenger for unacceptable denied boardings/long delays/cancellatons, created by the operational decisions of that business. A 6 hour delay for a 90 minute flight, I don't think it unreasonable to expect some sort a compensation for that? However that is not the crux of the matter. This regulation has been in effect for over 8 years. This is more than suffient time for the airlines to change their business and operational practices. All have made the choice NOT to improve reliability (or customer service) and must therefore accept the consequences ie compensation payouts. It is a shame it has taken so long for this matter to become a major issue and shameful on the airlines that they still continue to fight against it and fail to improve their standards. Nobody forced the budget airlines to adopt the low fare posturing, it is of their own making. It is notable that such airlines are usually now no less expensive than other alternative "national" carriers.

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

I agree there is definitely things airlines can do to minimise delays, and the information, especially from Monarch in a delay situation is not good, probably because in most cases airport handling is provided by a 3rd party.

Monarch have the worst record of any UK charter/schedule airline for delays - they should address this first. Most airlines use 'external' handling agents and as Monarch employ them as such the blame rests with Monarch and the excuse that their handling agent is a 3rd party is of no relevance or indeed help to the delayed Monarch passenger.

Aedus wrote: »

I mentioned before, the amount they spent on your case was probably a drop in the water for the amount of claims they may have rejected for that flight already, it makes defending it worth it in most cases, if there are few claims, they wouldn't bother.

You infer in your earlier post that there is something not morally correct if passengers claims for say a 181 minute delay and/or when their ticket price is less than the compensation they are seeking. I think it is morally wrong for an airline to defend when they know the customer is right whether they do this to 'protect' their profit or not. Particularly when an airline representative lies about the background to a delay I find this reprehensible.

Aedus wrote: »

Your assumptions are correct, I used to work for an airline, but it doesn't prevent me telling people with a genuine grievance to make a claim, I'm happy to help with claims, but it's easy to see it from one perspective and not the other, if you've worked in the industry you'd probably take a different view of the matter, which is why I talk about the morality of claims if someone is doing it seemingly just for free money.

I guess you didn't work for EasyJet or BA who generally treat their customers with respect when it comes to making claims. Unfortunately I believe the problem with Monarch (besides the old planes, small fleet, differing makes, lack of hubs outside UK etc) is the fact they are privately owned and just cannot compete with the PLC likes of Ryanair/EasyJet and the legacy carriers. They are trying to compete on price/routes and failing badly in the one aspect they possibly could (and used to) compete on which was service.

Aedus

111KAB wrote: »

Monarch have the worst record of any UK charter/schedule airline for delays - they should address this first. Most airlines use 'external' handling agents and as Monarch employ them as such the blame rests with Monarch and the excuse that their handling agent is a 3rd party is of no relevance or indeed help to the delayed Monarch passenger.



You infer in your earlier post that there is something not morally correct if passengers claims for say a 181 minute delay and/or when their ticket price is less than the compensation they are seeking. I think it is morally wrong for an airline to defend when they know the customer is right whether they do this to 'protect' their profit or not. Particularly when an airline representative lies about the background to a delay I find this reprehensible.



I guess you didn't work for EasyJet or BA who generally treat their customers with respect when it comes to making claims. Unfortunately I believe the problem with Monarch (besides the old planes, small fleet, differing makes, lack of hubs outside UK etc) is the fact they are privately owned and just cannot compete with the PLC likes of Ryanair/EasyJet and the legacy carriers. They are trying to compete on price/routes and failing badly in the one aspect they possibly could (and used to) compete on which was service.

That's definitely a point Monarch in particular need to improve on, but it's not something so simple as you'd think, don't get me wrong and think I'll defend them, because I won't, if someone is delayed and it has effectively ruined their holiday, they completely deserve compensation, but do I agree that people should be able to claim back more than they paid for the flight? Not at all. The legislation in my view is too generalised.

I think from my posts it's obvious who I worked for, but I'm not going to confirm either way, I'm here to give my view from both sides of the fence, which is what a lot of people here won't have. But if you check my posts, I've never told anyone to not claim, I've only ever stated about morality of claiming if the airline had a genuine reason for a delay and treated the passenger's with respect.

Monarch should 100% go back to providing a great service and forget about competing with Easy jet and Ryan air in my view. They used to be great, now, not at all.

Mark2spark

Aedus wrote: »

...but do I agree that people should be able to claim back more than they paid for the flight? Not at all.

So an extra days airport parking charge, or having to pay for a local hotel after the delayed arrival cos you are so late there is no transport running, knocking on to a days missed work... all of these things don't count towards getting back no more than a refund?
Hmmm.

A €5 voucher towards a meal when a bottle of water costs €3.50 airside is another area that needs addressing.

Aedus

Mark2spark wrote: »

So an extra days airport parking charge, or having to pay for a local hotel after the delayed arrival cos you are so late there is no transport running, knocking on to a days missed work... all of these things don't count towards getting back no more than a refund?
Hmmm.

A €5 voucher towards a meal when a bottle of water costs €3.50 airside is another area that needs addressing.

Out of pocket expenses should always factor in, and Monarch do refund them already.

It's difficult to state where bands of compensation should be split, if someone is delayed 24 hours, do they only deserve a refund + out of pocket expenses, or do they deserve more? Its tough for me to say. But iI don't see how its fair on the airline if someone paid £25 for a flight, was delayed 3 hours, so they claim £250 from them. Of course again, only my view on the matter. As iI stated, it will only drive prices up on the long term, which is bad for consumers.

And yeah, 5 euros is not enough for food and a drink, not at all.