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

FANG

111KAB wrote: »

FANG - general answers here > https://www.facebook.com/notes/monarch-complaints/reference-material-if-faced-with-monarch-delay-over-3-hours/226027064225351

In addition I assume your plane was subject to the normal Monarch 60 minute turnaround + that the turbulence did not occur as the plane touched down so in effect given your 210 minute delay I would imagine the airline were aware at least 5 hours prior. Birmingham is one of their bases and numerous crews are based there ~ 5 hours is far to long a period and is just another attempt by Monarch to resist a legitimate claim.

ps - I would also ask Monarch to refrain from writing letters to you with your Christian name ~ totally out of order ~ suggest they refer to you (at least) with a Mr or Mrs.

Thanks for your help 111KAB there is some great info there


Surely turbulence and air crew being unable to work due to illness or injury are not extraordinary circumstances.


Can anyone tell me how I should proceed with my claim and the process I should take


Thanks gang


FANG

111KAB

FANG wrote: »

Can anyone tell me how I should proceed with my claim and the process I should take

Court action (read page one FAQ's) either under your own steam for 100% return or a no win no fee firm for c. 73% of your entitlement.

richardw

Reasonable measures ? http://www.monarchholdingslimited.com/media/news-and-press-releases/2013/monarch-aircraft-engineering-opens-new-birmingham-hangar/

Randy

We applied for compensation for a 9 hour delay on Flight ZB612/Manchester to Las Palmas/Sep 2010

At the time we were told our aircraft had a technical fault and then Crew shift change due to length of delay. This is their reply to our claim: By the way we heard nothing of a "Bird Strike" and this would have made news at the time and nothing is on record.

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

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. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary.



Our records show that your flight was delayed due to technical problems with aircraft within the Monarch fleet. One aircraft had suffered a ‘bird strike’ and had been grounded in order for engineers to perform the requisite inspection to ensure that no internal damage had occurred. The second aircraft had been declared unsafe to fly due to a number one engine stall during a previous flight. As a consequence, there were insufficient aircraft within the fleet to operate your flight on time. However, in order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.

111KAB

Randy wrote: »

We applied for compensation for a 9 hour delay on Flight ZB612/Manchester to Las Palmas/Sep 2010

At the time we were told our aircraft had a technical fault and then Crew shift change due to length of delay. This is their reply to our claim: By the way we heard nothing of a "Bird Strike" and this would have made news at the time and nothing is on record.

Bird strikes are very common and very few make the news.
The main reasons for making the news is if an engine is seriously damaged or a particular bird species is involved.
You have a valid claim and this Page may assist https://www.facebook.com/notes/monarch-complaints/reference-material-if-faced-with-monarch-delay-over-3-hours/226027064225351
as will reference to Page one.

greylib

ZB978 Birmingham - Malaga 15th October 2012, 4 hours delay.

A small addendum to my successful claim (this thread #3129, and resolution #3381).

I complained, rejected their explanation, sent a Notice Before Action, and then filed with Money Claim Online. Monarch responded to the court that they would be defending the action. Then, three weeks later, they sent me a cheque, with accompanying letter:

Please find attached a cheque in full and final settlement of your above claim. Please ensure that you file a Notice of Discontinuance with the Court and send us a copy as soon as possible.

Please note that the settlement amount and terms of settlement are strictly confidential between the parties.

A couple of days later I received their "defence" from the court:

The Defendant disputes that it has any liability to the Claimant as alleged or at all. Nonetheless the Defendant does not wish to dispute this claim and shall make payment for the whole amount claimed.

After the cheque cleared, I went to the MCOL website, looking for a way of filing their Notice of Discontinuance. Couldn't see it, so I emailed the court:

Monarch Airlines have paid my claim in full and have asked me to file a Notice of Discontinuance with the court, but I see no way of doing that online. I would be grateful if you let me know the correct procedure.

The reply from the court was surprising:

I have marked the case as paid in full as requested. You are not required to do anything further in relation to this claim.

If I'd done as they asked, it would have looked as if I made the claim, they defended it, I withdrew it. But why? Who exactly are they trying to fool? All I can think is that they are trying to skew the statistics, like this:

Out of 100 aircraft over three hours late, representing 20,000 passengers, 18,000 have yet to claim. Of the remaining 2,000:
1200 gave up after receiving our first "extraordinary circumstances" letter.
300 gave up after receiving the second letter.
200 have sent a Notice Before Action but have not followed through.
180 have withdrawn their claim after we posted our defence.
100 court cases still pending
20 claims upheld by the courts.

NB: all figures are guesstimates.

In other words, the figures have been massaged down from 200 to 20. Possibly to make them look better with their bosses, possibly so they can tell future claimants "only 1% of claims have been successful. You have to ask yourself - do you feel lucky?"

Any thoughts?

Aedus

greylib wrote: »

Any thoughts?

Yeah, wrong. I don't think it's a major concern anymore, certainly not enough to worry anyone.

I like the figures the most though, I realise they were guesstimates, but still way off. Start with 1,500 flights instead of 100 and you'll be closer.

greylib

Aedus wrote: »

Yeah, wrong. I don't think it's a major concern anymore, certainly not enough to worry anyone.

I like the figures the most though, I realise they were guesstimates, but still way off. Start with 1,500 flights instead of 100 and you'll be closer.

Of course. I couldn't even begin to guesstimate how many delayed flights are within the 5-year claim period, so I lowballed it. Maybe I should have said "for every 100 flights over 3 hours late..."

Does that work better?

Aedus

Yeah makes more sense.

The figures were just to steer the guesstimates in the right direction, the main point was that I don't believe it to be much of a concern now, so I don't think there's any motive behind what you said before.

greylib

Aedus wrote: »

Yeah makes more sense.

The figures were just to steer the guesstimates in the right direction, the main point was that I don't believe it to be much of a concern now, so I don't think there's any motive behind what you said before.

Not quite sure what you mean here. "It" in my original post, was Monarch's attempt to get me to file a Notice of Discontinuance. If I'd done so, they could quite rightly say that I'd withdrawn my claim after they'd posted their defence. Why isn't that "much of a concern"?