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

klint

@Flycobob - Very interesting. You may want to post on the "Monarch Complaints" Facebook page to reach a wider audience and ask if anyone else was on the same flight as you, who may be able to back up your story.

JPears

Ruthie21 wrote: »

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?

You should be able to check the registration of the aircraft used on both flights with a bit of google searching

jicms

klint wrote: »

That's an interesting one, and I'd like to see what the answer is.

I have been on flights from Cyprus to the UK many times before, and, although usually we flew over France, on a few occasions we only flew over Germany and Belgium, completely outside French airspace. I wonder if other airlines had changed their flight plans to avoid French airspace on that day, and if so, why not Monarch?

I was going to accept this but after hearing Monarch initially turn down most people I'm thinking perhaps I should try and find out if this is a valid reason for denying liability. Is progressing to the CAA the only way to find out? Is it worth trying?

Emsden

We were delayed for 22 hours at Gatwick airport on 23 August after a fellow passenger, described by the captain as a 'very observant passenger' spotted just before take off that the cabin window next to her seat was cracked (blimey, thank goodness for observant passengers!). She mentioned it to a cabin steward and it was escalated until it was decided we needed to disembark for repairs. There followed a shambolic 22 hours while Monarch gave us no info on our rights or choices, barely looked after us and were generally in hiding. To add insult to injury when we finally got on a plane the next day it was delayed by another 2 hours as our baggage had been loaded onto the wrong plane - Monarch's fault again as both planes had the same flight number and the ground staff were as confused as we were.

Monarch have refused our claim as they say that a broken window is EC but I think they are wrong because:
noone knows how long the window had been broken for
if Monarch had undertaken even the most rudimentary aircraft checks following the previous flight then they would have spotted this earlier and could have initiated repairs earlier
how extraordinary is it that a window gets damaged? It can't be that rare. Shouldn't airlines keep spare window panes at airports for incidents like this?
Monarch did not take reasonable steps to keep the delays to a minimum

I'd be grateful for any thoughts on this one.
Thanks

Emsden

PS - I am struggling to get the hang of this forum/thread lark! Why are the most recent posts shown last, I thought they showed most recent first (apart from pinned posts)? I've posted this 3 times now and not sure if any of them are in the right place!
Doh.

111KAB

Emsden there is a long dialogue regarding this on the Monarch Complaints Facebook Page - the fact that Monarch had no spares at one of their hubs did not go down well when they had to divert a plane to deliver some spares! The Manchester to Gibraltar flight was also delayed due to the enforced delivery job it performed at Gatwick.

statictom

Centipede100 wrote: »

Disappointing for you I am certain but your closing paragraph is excellent advice. Whilst barristers and solicitors may be comfortable appearing at a court hearing, I am certain that airline staff will not usually be at ease and therefore the advice must be to demand that they appear if they have submitted a witness statement in the court bundle.

This should put them on the spot and ought to make it a little easier to convince the judge of one's case if there are any irregularities in the statement.

This will not only cause the airline some operational issues (and why not since they have originally caused the claimant upwards of 3 hours inconvenience in the first place) but may be a useful tactic to coax the airline into settling before a hearing since this costs them the employees' time and travel to various courts as well as that of their legal representatives.

It appears Monarch may have put pressure on my local court in the North West to have my case transferred to Luton, due to the senior position of some of their witnesses they wish to use. I have written and e-mailed Luton requesting my case be returned to my local court. So much for cases being dealt with fairly and both parties being treated as equal.

JPears

sharronn23 wrote: »

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."

But the ticket/flight wasn't free, you paid £45 for the privelage.
Time for an NBA.

JPears

statictom wrote: »

It appears Monarch may have put pressure on my local court in the North West to have my case transferred to Luton, due to the senior position of some of their witnesses they wish to use. I have written and e-mailed Luton requesting my case be returned to my local court. So much for cases being dealt with fairly and both parties being treated as equal.

I'd keep resisting and throwing the CPR rules at the court.

dave450

good morning, have aproblem, we had a flight delay of 24 hours in 2010 the month of october, from sharm back to gatwick, pretty sure it was monarch, cannot seem to get through to anybody to confirm details,do not have any related paperwork, but i do no the date of dely was 23rd 24th october.tour operator was ON THE BEACH.do i need to do a lot more homework. chris