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

sharronn23

She didn't have her own seat though, she was under 2 at the time of travelling.

111KAB

sharronn23 wrote: »

She didn't have her own seat though, she was under 2 at the time of travelling.

Time for a comment from Mr Benson I believe

richardw

All Monarch need is a DJ who feels an unnamed infant on a lap is not a passenger.

Moskovite

Brace_Yourself wrote: »

Re: Flight ZB228 Gatwick to Palma 23rd August 2013

Have just had response from Monarch claiming extrodainary circumstances, claiming as follows:

"
Our records show that your flight was delayed as a result of a structural damage being found on the left wing upper surface panel shortly prior to you departure. Engineers contacted the manufacturer (Airbus) who advised the aircraft should be taken out of service until a full repair could be carried out. As a result our operations team made arrangements for a rescue aircraft operated by a third party carrier, to operate your flight on our behalf. Despite our best efforts this event led to an unavoidable delay to the departure of your flight."

Without knowing more about the damage itself it's difficult to judge, but I'm thinking of persuing with a NBA. Any thoughts or prior cases on structural damage as EC?

I was on that flight too. Eager to take this to the court via NWNP company. Structural damage is not an extraordinary circumstance. It's negligence and lack of proper maintenance. In any case they didn't even provide accommodation for an overnight delay so should be sued for this alone.

Cupcakegirl_2

I expect this will sound awfully familiar to a lot of you.

After a 10 hour delay to our flight out to Corfu, we went down the route of filling out Monarch's claim form. Have just been advised today that they will not pay any compensation because it was an "extraordinary circumstance". There was a technical issue with the plane & I'm pretty sure this isn't a good enough reason to refuse compensation.

After scrolling through the threads, I'm wondering is there any point writing back to Monarch or the CAA?

Is court my only chance of getting compensation?

Many thanks

111KAB

Cupcakegirl wrote: »

Have just been advised today that they will not pay any compensation because it was an "extraordinary circumstance". There was a technical issue with the plane & I'm pretty sure this isn't a good enough reason to refuse compensation. After scrolling through the threads, I'm wondering is there any point writing back to Monarch or the CAA? Is court my only chance of getting compensation?

No point in writing back to Monarch and CAA are useless however if you do go to court the Judge may ask if you approached the CAA so whilst you will probably get little or nothing out of them you may as well 'tick the box'. Sounds like you or NWNF firm for court action. May be worth having a rant on https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints in case anyone on there was on your flight.

JPears

sharronn23 wrote: »

I have just phoned the CAA enquiry line and the lady told me if I have only paid an administrative charge I cannot claim.

So you have paid an administrative charge? For what - low and behold a flight. Ask Monarch what the (excessive) administrative charge is for precisely.
CAA response? Ignore, CAA are not the consumers' friend.

sharronn23

CAA have also replied to the email enquiry, expected them to take weeks which is why I phoned them.

"Thank you for your Enquiry received on 17 October 2013.

In answer to your question, if the infant travelled for free of charge, albeit with an administrative charge it maybe helpful to explain that EC Regulation 261/2004 ( Article 3.3) states that ''This Regulation would not apply to passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public''.

Taking this into account Monarch Airlines would be correct in saying that compensation would not be payable to an infant."

Ruthie21

We were booked on this flight which was delayed by 14 hours. I have now heard from Monarch that the reason for the delay was, and i quote 'a result of a structural damage being found on the left wing upper surface panel on the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight'. Curiously, i have just seen on this forum that the exact same excuse was given to somebody who was delayed on a Monarch flight from Gatwick to Palma on 23rd August!!

So, was this the same aeroplane and a recurring fault? Or a different aeroplane with the same fault? Or a load of rubbish just to fob us off?

Has anyone else had this excuse from them?

Flycobob

I was also on this flight and Monarchs Day manager confirmed to me in person that the delay was due to our scheduled plane being used to clear the previous days Tenerife flight, which had been delayed for 24hrs due to a cracked window screen. Nothing was wrong with the plane we were due to fly on, as they used it to clear this flight and they were sourcing a replacement for ours.

The day manager admitted they were liable and presented those around me with the guidance to make an EU claim.

I have today heard back, and their story has now changed to structural wing damage and falls under Extraordinary Circumstances, and that the records are confidential.

Based on what I was told this appears to be a complete lie to avoid payment and I will be submitting a complaint to the CAA on the grounds that Monarch are lying and ask for a full legal investigation.

I have also contacted watchdog with the details. Can I urge all who where on this flight to claim and follow the same path.

Please can you post in reply any details you may hold on this case and actions your are undertaking. Apologies for any typo's.........