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

SimonLugs

mr_bod wrote: »

Hi all, I was on the Monarch flight from Cardiff to Sanford on the 18th September 2008 when the flight was delayed for more than 8 hours, infact over 9 hours in total, with my wife and two kids.
I see from the list they put it as "an engine fault", as soon as we checked in we were told of a six, yes 6 hour delay. the spoke's lady claimed a new plane was on the way from luton (what are those things that you put a boats ore in, yes rollocks).
Was anybody else on this flight? because i phoned my mate at the time and he was pretty convinced they were doing mercy flights for some airline that had gone bust, but can't prove it.
But wont give up,9 hours delay is just pure incompetency.

Hi, we too were on this flight. Was a rediculous delay.

I have written to Monarch with a reply of no compensation. I then passed my stuff over to a company (see post above) and am now in limbo on what to do next as time is running away.

Stay in touch if u get any info, mail me on here to exchange e-mails etc.

friendofbillw2

statictom wrote: »

I don`t really mind when the case comes to court. I just want my day in court. Court file is already done and this site gives me confidence. I was surprised to be offered a cash settlement during mediation, needless to say it was nothing like my actual claim.
If they insist on trying to introduce documents into their defense which are not backed up by law, then so be it. I`ll stick rigidly to EU 261/2004 and Wallentin-Hermann.

My sentiments exactly! I'm due in court in 6 weeks. I'll keep you all posted.

ukwendy

Has anyone had any joy in getting compensation for this delay? We were delayed at Gatwick airport for 9 hours after the first plane had instrument problems and the replacement plane needed to have a wheel changed before it could take off! We left 9 hours to the minute after our scheduled departure and effectively lost one whole day of a 3 night break in Barcelona. We have claimed through Monarch and were refused compensation - we then declined to accept that response and asked them to reconsider but have now been told that they do not consider compensation is due:

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In direct reference to the recently released EC guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances you will note that failure of on-condition monitored parts when they have been correctly maintained in addition to any technical defect which becomes apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight are considered an extraordinary circumstance.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]How can exceptional circumstances apply to TWO separate incidents on the same flight??[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Any advice/thoughts will be gratefully received?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Thanks [/FONT]

statictom

ukwendy wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]In direct reference to the recently released EC guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances you will note that failure of on-condition monitored parts when they have been correctly maintained in addition to any technical defect which becomes apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight are considered an extraordinary circumstance.[/FONT]
[/I]

Please see post 3035. Tried to use the same excuse with me during mediation.
They are quoting from a document that is a preliminary list drawn up by the airlines with NEB dated 12 Apr 13. The document is for information and guidance only - the contents of the document does not represent a binding opinion on the European Commission.

Sweet_FA

I completed Monarch's claim forms and have received a response from them claiming,

'Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight sustained damage to the rear door of the aircraft by a set of steps. Engineers attended the aircraft and began repairing the damage. Due to the length of time taken to repair the fault, the crew operating your flight exceeded their maximum legal operating hours and were therefore required to take a minimum rest period before completing the flight. Usually in circumstances such as these, we would call on our standby crew to continue your flight. However, due to industrial action within French Air Traffic Control the previous two days, our standby crew had already been utilised to cope with the unusually high demand for additional flying to ensure the fleet and flying programme were not disrupted. The strike affected all flights operating in and around French airspace. Many areas of French airspace were either closed or heavily restricted due to staff shortages. Routings avoiding French airspace were used but these were heavily regulated due to the huge demand for this airspace. Some flights were rerouted to avoid the French airspace but still had large ATC delays and incurred much higher flying times.

Despite our best efforts we were unable to transfer your flight to a third party operator and as a result your flight was unavoidably delayed

Having considered the factual background of this case, 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.'

The pilot of our flight advised us that the damage had been caused at Manchester Airport the previous morning, approximately 36 hours before we were due to depart from Dalaman.

I'm now preparing to send a letter before action to Monarch. I've perused hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on here and also scanned through the various relevant ecj's. However, I'm still not sure what my case should be. Blondmark has advised against using the 'Finnair' judgment, as this is more relevant to denied boarding cases. Is third party damage to the aircraft a technical problem? If so, should I just quote Wallentin? Is the strike action by French Air Traffic Control relevant, even though the strike action ended three days before our flight? I would be very grateful for any advice regarding the above.

ukwendy

"They are quoting from a document that is a preliminary list drawn up by the airlines with NEB dated 12 Apr 13. The document is for information and guidance only - the contents of the document does not represent a binding opinion on the European Commission.[/QUOTE]"

Thanks for the advice - will send them another email rejecting their decision and see what happens!

mikaelam

SimonLugs wrote: »

Hi,
I have been away for a while due to close family death, work, hols etc etc.

I havent had a good luck at all posts in here yet but will later tonight or weekend.

My claim was sent to Aviation Loss Consultants Ltd. They looked at it, agreed to take it on, had me sign the forms. Then when i chased them up they suddenly sent this reply:

Dear Simon,

Having reviewed these presented claims further ALC will not be taking further action in relation to these claims. Therefore, please regard these claims as remaining vested and unencumbered in the hands of the passengers.

You have previously advanced a claim against the carrier and have received a refusal to the claim you submitted. You have the ability to present a complaint for investigation to the responsible NEB ( National Enforcement Body)-in this case the UK Civil Aviation Authority. A prior refusal to such a claim is a necessary precursor to the NEB agreeing to make such investigation. It is entirely possible that the CAA may already have been investigating the circumstances surrounding this particular flight delay.


Please realise that a claim may become time barred after 6 years in a English and Welsh court -although certain airlines might maintain that a lesser time bar inhibition may operate-such as 2 years from the anniversary of the delay.

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to ALC to provide this review

Kind regards,



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hugh[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hugh Stewart[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Director[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Aviation Loss Consultants Limited[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I smell a rat, or am i being too suspicious? How can i find out that they definatly dropped it and not just saying they have then taking it on without saying anything to me?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Y would they just drop it like that?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Any advice on what to do now?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Thanks in advance.[/FONT]

Oh wow, you've actually had a response! Hugh has not got back to me for months, I've even emailed to say if he doesn't wish to carry on with my claim to please let me know. His site was offline under maintenance for a long time and I noticed it was back up end of last week, I've contacted him through there and still no response! I've now tried doing it through someone else and they phoned today to get details. I too think something is dodgy with Hugh.

klint

SimonLugs wrote: »

hope i am allowed to put my addy in here? apologies if not.

I would strongly advise removing your email address. Even if you don't mind Monarch seeing it (they do read these posts) these posts get scanned by software robots that pick up addresses for spamming purposes. I'm sure you've got enough on your plate with your Monarch claim without getting inundated with offers of fake slimming tablets and various even more dodgy products and services.

kiddo57

Perrywright2 wrote: »

Thank you guys , newbie mistake , any suggestions guys if I should proceed would be most welcome, also I have email from Monarch confirming they new about problem before they boarded us, we had fire engine and could see fuel on runway due to leak as we got on. Am I correct in thinking this means they knew about techical issues and did nothing to resolve it and still boarded us ?

I was on the same flight. My understanding is that the ground staff damaged the plane when refuelling (this is what the co-pilot told a fellow passenger) so they must have known about the problem before we boarded. I submitted a claim over a month ago but not heard anything yet, despite chasing. From reading posts on this forum this lack of response sounds quite commonplace! I incurred extra costs because of the 36 hour delay which I would like to recover, but my main gripe is that I cannot believe it should take so long to obtain and fit a replacement part. We were given various and conflicting excuses during the 36 hours, including the claim they needed to fly in parts and engineers from distant shores. Surely there are sufficiently qualified engineers and parts in Egypt? If not, what on earth do Egyptair do in such circumstances???
Rant over.

JPears

statictom wrote: »

ukwendy wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]In direct reference to the recently released EC guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances you will note that failure of on-condition monitored parts when they have been correctly maintained in addition to any technical defect which becomes apparent immediately prior to departure or in-flight which require investigation and/or repair before the aircraft is airworthy for the intended flight are considered an extraordinary circumstance.[/FONT]
[/I]

Please see post 3035. Tried to use the same excuse with me during mediation.
They are quoting from a document that is a preliminary list drawn up by the airlines with NEB dated 12 Apr 13. The document is for information and guidance only - the contents of the document does not represent a binding opinion on the European Commission.

It is NOT for guidance by anyone. It is a draft proposal, very much a work in progress and has NO legal standing or otherwise.