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

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

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

Incorrect as proven in my court case.

Vauban

Aedus wrote: »

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.

This is a legitimate perspective, Aedus. But is misses one key point: the law is the law, and cannot be selectively applied if companies disagree with it. It's fine to say that Regulation 261/04 is a bad law, and needs to be changed (that's not my view, incidentally). But it is not fine systematically to deprive customers of their legal rights through deceit and misrepresentation.

In my experience, a company must live its values - and if it behaves dishonestly to its customers this becomes a cancer that eats away at the entire operation. Monarch has the feel to me of a company that has lost its way somewhat.

Mark987123

bazaar wrote: »

totally agree, also, might be wrth checking with OP if their claim has been allocated to track yet, ( Yep, they folded, ive posted on the success thread)

Thanks for these very helpful replies. I will wait until they reply and then threaten the small claims court I think. Hopefully the costs aren't too great which is I guess what Monarch rely on to put people off. What is OP by the way? Mark

Aedus

Vauban wrote: »

This is a legitimate perspective, Aedus. But is misses one key point: the law is the law, and cannot be selectively applied if companies disagree with it. It's fine to say that Regulation 261/04 is a bad law, and needs to be changed (that's not my view, incidentally). But it is not fine systematically to deprive customers of their legal rights through deceit and misrepresentation.

In my experience, a company must live its values - and if it behaves dishonestly to its customers this becomes a cancer that eats away at the entire operation. Monarch has the feel to me of a company that has lost its way somewhat.

Again let me reiterate that I don't agree with not paying compensation for delays, that's not my intent, but my view is that it's far too generalised to work fairly for both parties. A 5 hours delay on a weekend break vs a 5 hours delay on a 2 week holiday, the circumstances are completely different and should be treated as such.

I don't agree with the moral stance that companies have taken on some cases, rejecting claims when someone was delayed 24 hours is ridiculous, but again, as is laid out now, they just see it as a claim and want to save the money.

They have certainly lost their way, hopefully they go back to normal again.

Honestly have no idea why they didn't reimburse your costs Kim, unless you didn't retain your receipts, but they definitely refund out of pocket expenses to people, I'm not going to sit here and lie to you, it has no benefit to me.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Agree wholeheartedly with this but have changed your final word to reflect the situation rather more accurately.

Forgive me - I was merely using characteristic English understatement, which is quite common in my profession. The meaning - and feeling - is unambiguous however.

Aedus

I can't comment on volcanic ash, as I never had worked for an airline at that point. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. As I said, I'm only giving a different view point of compensation with the regulation, I've never been affected by a delay so of course my view will be much different than yours, maybe if I had been delayed it would be different. But what I state isn't solely for Monarch, it's for all airlines regarding compensation, and the fall back this will create long term for consumers looking to go on holiday in the future.

When prices increase to an astronomical rate to make up for loss from compensation, people will start complaining they can no longer afford to go on holiday because of the airlines.

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

.... But what I state isn't solely for Monarch, it's for all airlines regarding compensation, and the fall back this will create long term for consumers looking to go on holiday in the future.

When prices increase to an astronomical rate to make up for loss from compensation, people will start complaining they can no longer afford to go on holiday because of the airlines.

See my post #2968 for another explanation of why costs will/may increase. Your loyalty to Monarch is to be commended however it is that ill placed loyalty and myopic view from Director level down which is resulting in the almost blanket rejection of legitimate claims which in turn is leading to Court action and the alienation of a previous loyal and regular customer base.
The crux of the matter is Monarch should not be faced with having to offer compensation, they should get their act in order!

Aedus

I have no loyalty to them nor any company for that matter, I only speak from what I saw on the other side of the fence, which is what people miss, I couldn't care less about them. I just want people to realise the morality of certain claims, and the ramifications which will come if everyone is making claims blindly for free money.

Monarch has lost many loyal customers from this, and I have even tried to convince them to pay claims over a certain threshold of time, regardless of the reason, but it fell on deaf ears.

They are working on reducing delays, you can trust me on that, but it takes time unfortunately, the delayed arrival of the new aircraft didn't help either. But I'm not making excuses for them, the way they treat customers some delays is disgusting.

111KAB

Aedus wrote: »

....... the way they treat customers ..... is disgusting.

At least we agree on something!

Vauban

Aedus wrote: »

I have no loyalty to them nor any company for that matter, I only speak from what I saw on the other side of the fence, which is what people miss, I couldn't care less about them. I just want people to realise the morality of certain claims, and the ramifications which will come if everyone is making claims blindly for free money.

Monarch has lost many loyal customers from this, and I have even tried to convince them to pay claims over a certain threshold of time, regardless of the reason, but it fell on deaf ears.

They are working on reducing delays, you can trust me on that, but it takes time unfortunately, the delayed arrival of the new aircraft didn't help either. But I'm not making excuses for them, the way they treat customers some delays is disgusting.

I find it difficult to have any sympathy for Monarch based on my own experiences.

A 24 hour delay returning from Egypt because of a technical failure with a plane in Gatwick is not acceptable. But Monarch took forever to respond to my claim, before finally rejecting it as "extraordinary circumstances".

So I have taken them to court. But even there the contempt continues. Though the judge ordered Monarch to submit their bundle to the court and myself a fortnight ago, I still have nothing from them. I don't think my experience is atypical. And I have advised the court accordingly.