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

Vauban

If your flight is over 3500km then yes - a delay of more than three and less than four hours is paid at 50% (ie 300 Euros not 600). For the other categories, not it isn't: they remain at 400 and 250 Euros in these circumstances.

EDIT: Thought I'd substantiate this for those wanting to argue with the muppets at Monarch:

The Nelson judgement says in para 78:

Next, the amount of compensation, fixed at EUR 250, 400 and 600 depending on the distance of the flights concerned may still be reduced by 50% in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under subparagraphs (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours (Sturgeon and Others, paragraph 63).

For ease of reference, the Regulation in Article 7(2) is about how compensation can be reduced in the circumstances of a re-routing (following a cancellation): your compensation could be reduced by half if you arrived within two hours for a short flight, three for a medium length flight or four hours for a long haul flight. Here's the detail:

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1500 kilometres or less; or
(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres; or
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

As Sturgeon ruled that delays over three hours were eligible for compensation, then the provisions for those flights in a) and b) are irrelevant in a standard delay scenario (as they deal with sub-three hour re-routes). Only the long haul flights provision remains active, to the benefit of the airline.

Hope this (sort of) makes sense!

batman44

Thanks Vauban, the flight was from Egypt sharm, 4005km, they said there was a problem with the aircraft on the previous trip from Palma arriving at Manchester and then on the Sharm to pick us up, the flight was the same as scheduled, and we arrived at Sharm airport to be handed a letter and told it was delayed by 3 hours, we landed 3 hours 20mins late at manchester.
Not sure if this should be the full amount or 50% reduction. There was no alternative aircraft offered we just had to wait for the original aircraft to arrive.

At least they admit they should pay it by bank transfer, should I just go with that?

The usual EC's is quoted, but the pilot said a metal object was spotted stuck in the tyre at Palma and needed a tyre change. I say all part of running a airline and a tech problem.

Vauban

batman44 wrote: »

Thanks Vauban, the flight was from Egypt sharm, 4005km, they said there was a problem with the aircraft on the previous trip from Palma arriving at Manchester and then on the Sharm to pick us up, the flight was the same as scheduled, and we arrived at Sharm airport to be handed a letter and told it was delayed by 3 hours, we landed 3 hours 20mins late at manchester.
Not sure if this should be the full amount or 50% reduction. There was no alternative aircraft offered we just had to wait for the original aircraft to arrive.

At least they admit they should pay it by bank transfer, should I just go with that?

The usual EC's is quoted, but the pilot said a metal object was spotted stuck in the tyre at Palma and needed a tyre change. I say all part of running a airline and a tech problem.

Yep - then 300 euros per paying passenger it is. If you had been another 40 mins late, you'd have been entitled to the full 600.

A foreign object on the runway would be an interesting question - but not in your case, when it happened some time previously.

Did Monarch agree to pay up without you having to take them to court? Was it easy to claim?

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Yep - then 300 euros per paying passenger it is. If you had been another 40 mins late, you'd have been entitled to the full 600.

A foreign object on the runway would be an interesting question - but not in your case, when it happened some time previously.

Did Monarch agree to pay up without you having to take them to court? Was it easy to claim?

Just got back this moring, not fired in the claim yet but the letter states - You will be entitled to compensation if your flight arrives 3 or more hours late, compensation will be paid by bank transfer, cheque or with my written permission vouchers, and please note if your flight arrived 3 late but not more than 4 hours then compensation will be reduced by 50%.

Then a footnote about if the delay was caused by EC's then it would not be payable.

Reckon they are admitting, as this was a knock on problem.

Also to be fair to Monarch they had staff at Sharm sorting it out and we got a sandwich and a drink pretty much straight away, but the food at Sharm airport is terrible.

Vauban

This is quite interesting:

http://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2014/1227/monarch’s-defence-rejected-after-cat-delays-flight

JPears

Hmm interesting, in the paper scissors stone of case law, with this case, meteorlogical conditions not affecting the flight concerned overrule circumstances beyond airlines control.
I wonder how the judge decided/reasoned that one?

Vauban

I don't know: I think the claimant got lucky. (The turbulence was a meteorological condition which didn't affect the flight concerned and therefore, as the cause of the delay, wasn't extraordinary. Turbulence is rather inherent in the experience of operating an airline.) I'm surprised a NWNF firm took it on, TBH, but hey - I'm no lawyer!

JPears

A pleasing outcome none the less

tgon

My letter to Monarch claiming denied boarding resulted in a claim form being sent back to me. Seems they want it on their "official" (poorly photocopied) form.

David_e

tgon wrote: »

My letter to Monarch claiming denied boarding resulted in a claim form being sent back to me. Seems they want it on their "official" (poorly photocopied) form.

I had that with Virgin. If I was you I would just send an NBA referring to your original letter. There's absolutely no requirement for you to complete any specific airline form to make a claim.