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

sjp1971

MON328 sanford to Gatwick 21.06.2008

Please can anyone advise on the following reply I have recieved from Monarch.

Our records shiow that during departure from Sanford, the aircrft's exhaust gas temperature readings on the number one engine fluctuated significantly, resulting in an aborted takeoff. Engineers attended the aircraft to carry out an investigation and they traced the fault to the thermo couple. Arrangements were made to source and ship the required part out to Sanford in order that it could be replaced. As a consequence the departure of your flight was unaviodably delayed. However in order to reduce the delay and minimise disruption, we arranged for an alternative aircraft from within our fleet to operate you flight.

Would be very grateful for any advice on the next steps.

friendofbillw2

Aedus wrote: »

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

What I want to happen is very simple.

I want the law to be followed, and where it is not followed, I want it to be enforced!

If not by the National Enforcement Body (there is a clue there somewhere - they are a joke and not at all fit for purpose, except as a trade body) then by the courts.

As others have said, you can argue that it is bad law and lobby for it to be changed - the airlines have tried that since 2004 and failed every time - but the law is the law, the European Court has stated many times what its aim is with this legislation - and us consumers can expect it to be followed or enforced. Any wailing over a perceived 'compensation culture' is a red herring.

You can also argue that the law makes the current commercial model of low cost air travel unsustainable. I agree. Then the message to those airlines is very simple - change or die. In a free market there are always many industries and sectors that have exactly that dilemma to face, some as a result of increased consumer protection. What gives the airlines exemption from such a straightforward commercial reality?

Get us to our destinations on schedule or within a reasonable time or, except in genuine extraordinary outside circumstances, compensate us for the time we spend sitting around in airports. It's not difficult, not at all!

That is the law and any tactics to deny these legal rights to the consumer, as many airlines are currently doing (and the National Enforcement Body for pete's sake!), is totally contemptible.

klint

sjp1971 wrote: »

MON328 sanford to Gatwick 21.06.2008

Please can anyone advise on the following reply I have recieved from Monarch.

Our records shiow that during departure from Sanford, the aircrft's exhaust gas temperature readings on the number one engine fluctuated significantly, resulting in an aborted takeoff. Engineers attended the aircraft to carry out an investigation and they traced the fault to the thermo couple. Arrangements were made to source and ship the required part out to Sanford in order that it could be replaced. As a consequence the departure of your flight was unaviodably delayed. However in order to reduce the delay and minimise disruption, we arranged for an alternative aircraft from within our fleet to operate you flight.

Would be very grateful for any advice on the next steps.

It sounds like the technical problem was caused in the normal activity of the airline. It couldn't have been foreseen, but how delayed was your arrival? Did they get the alternative aircraft within a reasonable time?

sjp1971

On arrival to the airport for check in Monarch were allready aware of the problem, but were hopeful it would be resolved. That resulted in a delay for an hour after which we were boarded. The part then failed again and we were returned to the terminal. The overall delay was 6 hours.

tall_paul68

I have used Bott and Co and found them to be very efficient, I got as far as getting a rejection letter from Monarch but haven't the time or the will to pursue it further and happy to lose some money by using a professional and get something.

Claim was accepted by Bott as suitable on the 7/7/13 and really happy with the speed they dealt with it. received this email today.

We have now received confirmation from the Court that formal Court Proceedings have been issued. The Proceedings have been served on the airline and they are obliged to acknowledge receipt of those Proceedings within 14 days and then provide a formal written Defence within a further 14 days.

Looking forward to a succesful conclusion :T will be interesting to see if Monarch are prepared to take the professionals on!!

Mark2spark

pobcurly wrote: »

I will call the court first thing. I know I am jumping the gun here, but if they do overlook this, do you think it appropriate to raise that this happened when in court?

The legal terminology is 'discovery'.
'Discovery' of documents has not occurred at the pre court protocol timeframe.
Therefore you have not had time for 'inspection upon discovery' of the documentation.
That's more like the terminology you would use in court if they handed you their bundle on the steps outside the court house.
You'll be perfectly within your rights to request an adjournment if you feel that you've been disadvantaged by them not playing ball.
And make it clear to the judge that court time is being wasted by the other side not playing ball.

Mark2spark

sjp1971 wrote: »

On arrival to the airport for check in Monarch were allready aware of the problem, but were hopeful it would be resolved. That resulted in a delay for an hour after which we were boarded. The part then failed again and we were returned to the terminal. The overall delay was 6 hours.

IMO a tricky one. Initially a tech issue, so not EC, but having been given the all clear to go it became an in flight safety issue, therefore an EC.
Monarch will claim that the 2nd issue was different to the first one.

One for the CAA I reckon, - useless as they are - as they would at least, you would hope, be able to get accurate logs of the chronology of events.

JPears

Mark2spark wrote: »

IMO a tricky one. Initially a tech issue, so not EC, but having been given the all clear to go it became an in flight safety issue, therefore an EC.
Monarch will claim that the 2nd issue was different to the first one.

One for the CAA I reckon, - useless as they are - as they would at least, you would hope, be able to get accurate logs of the chronology of events.

But if it was the same part ie not renewed and failed then that is moving into the realms of inadequate/lax maintenance.
It might be helpful to find out what failed? Ie did it break or was faulty, like a flight computer? When did it fail? The latest proposals from the EC would suggest that a technical issue on pushback is not an EC.

Perrywright2

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the outcome of our investigation into your case.

Monarch Airlines aims as its first priority to provide its passengers with a safe and efficient service. We are sorry for the delay you experienced that has led to your claim for compensation. We would like to reassure you that every reasonable effort is made to ensure that our flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so through disruption, we aim to provide a solution at the earliest opportunity.

As previously advised, in some circumstances passengers may be entitled to compensation for delay arising from such disruption under European Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. The European Commission have published guidelines regarding what can and cannot be considered as extraordinary circumstances and we base our decision on these guidelines.

We can confirm that the crew operating the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight reported on arrival at Sharm el Sheik that fuel was venting from the right hand surge tank when the centre fuel pumps were running and a leak was subsequently located from the right hand vent surge valve. As a result of this leak the aircraft was declared unserviceable for safety reasons and we could not operate using this until the relevant rectification work was undertaken to the aircraft. The rectification work involved sourcing spare components which, along with adequate engineering resource, were transported by a hired light aircraft to rectify the fault. Due to the length of time involved to undertake the requisite rectification work the aircraft and passengers from your flight were unavoidably delayed for a lengthy period of time.

For your reference the fault which occurred was not caused by a failure to maintain the aircraft. The component which failed is considered ‘on condition’ which refers to parts which should not require unscheduled maintenance or replacement during normal operational service. When parts such as this fail during normal operation when maintained in accordance with the relevant maintenance programme this is an unpredictable event.

Our operations team worked extremely hard to source an alternative Monarch or third party carrier’s aircraft to operate your flight however during this peak summer flying period there was no availability which would minimise the unavoidable disruption you suffered.

Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

All flight delays are fully documented in accordance with the requirements of our regulator and the relevant legislation in place. Please note that this documentation cannot be disclosed to passengers nonetheless we actively supply this to the Civil Aviation Authority and National Enforcement Bodies upon request.

Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential.

Yours sincerely

JPears

Perrywright2 wrote: »

Re: ZB249 Sharm el Sheik to Gatwick 25th July 2013

Further to your claim for delay compensation, we are writing to advise the opean Union laws. However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Under these laws where the disruption is caused by an ‘which

Please note that the contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding your delay are strictly confidential.

Yours sincerely

Tut tut Perry, posting a confidential excuse we'vee seen many many times before :rotfl: