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

Jules2776_2

thanks for you reply, it was Luton to Larnaca 06.10.10 departure time was 15:20 but did not depart until 18:20.

Vauban

Jules2776 wrote: »

thanks for you reply, it was Luton to Larnaca 06.10.10 departure time was 15:20 but did not depart until 18:20.

Yes Jules - but when did it arrive? That is what counts for calculating the delay.

It is more than likely than at least some of the time was made up in the air, I suspect.

Jules2776_2

That's the problem I cannot remember exactly I know it was after midnight, it may have been about 1ish and unfortunately the Flight Stats website is not showing the arrival time, so I don't know if it is worth me sending the letter as it's only a cost of a stamp?

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

I saw a post on the internet the other week about someone who won a Monarch competition and, when the return flight was inevitably delayed (for a few days in fact) Monarch refused to provide them with any accommodation or meal expenses, as they hadn't paid for their ticket (they had merely won it, so weren't strictly covered by 261/04). You couldn't make it up ...

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/airline/monarch-airlines/1542742/

Ich_2

You couldn't make it up .

Though unreasonable as it is, that's the law, as folk on here often say! It works both ways

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

Though unreasonable as it is, that's the law, as folk on here often say! It works both ways

Not really Ich. The law sets the minimum standards that airline must adhere to. It does not prevent them from adopting appropriate behaviour.

To fly someone out as a "competition winner" and then to abandon responsibility for them when it transpires you cannot fly them back may be strictly legal: but it is not to be applauded (even, dare I say, by you?)

Ich_2

(even, dare I say, by you?)

You dare which is why I said

Though unreasonable

Though the rest was a bit tongue in cheek. And how they managed to actually take the time to separate that person smacks of something else.

But tell me this: - in cases where it appears airlines have actually tried their best or were in a Catch 22 situation are you going to advise not to claim?

Vauban

Ich wrote: »

But tell me this: - in cases where it appears airlines have actually tried their best or were in a Catch 22 situation are you going to advise not to claim?

I would advise people to claim only when I thought they had a legal entitlement to do so.

The Regulation creates a strict liability. I can appreciate that this could give rise the occasional apparent and arguable injustice, in the case eg of a properly maintained part failing mid-air and creating a delay that the airlines simply cannot mitigate. But I suppose I would make two points about this sort of scenario: a) it is quite rare, and therefore unlikely to impact much on an airline's bottom line; and b) the passengers still suffer the inconvenience of delay and it's not so inappropriate if they are therefore compensated.

But this is not a typical experience. The typical experience of those passengers entitled to compensation is that the airline could have done something better to mitigate the delay, including through better contingency planning and not running their fleet to white heat levels. But they then obfuscate when compensation is applied for and - sadly - sometimes even lie.

As others have said, the airlines have had quite a few years to prepare for this regime, and amend their business model accordingly. Either change your operational practice to minimise the risk of delays, or pay the statutory compensation when you inconvenience your passengers. But you can't have your cake and eat it!

Skid_Marks

Vauban wrote: »

sadly - sometimes even lie.

A little understated I would say from my experience and that of others on the forum!

I hope that this is not a sign of the Master showing compassion towards the Airlines after his court success.

Vauban

Skid_Marks wrote: »

A little understated I would say from my experience and that of others on the forum!

I hope that this is not a sign of the Master showing compassion towards the Airlines after his court success.

I am no Master; though this forum is a demanding Mistress.

My post was meant to be neither compassionate nor cruel. My point to Ich can be more simply put: the law is the law; and airlines have had many years to prepare for it.