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

Jinxs61

Scenario. Flight from Arrecife to East Midlands. 29.11.12
Flight pilot was ill during flight, flight diverted mid air to France. Put up in hotel. Flight back next day, arrived 24 hours after we should have.
No replacement pilot on board.
I did write to them, filled in application form etc but they initlally refused then blanked me.
Is this liable for compensation?

Vauban

Jinxs61 wrote: »

Scenario. Flight from Arrecife to East Midlands. 29.11.12
Flight pilot was ill during flight, flight diverted mid air to France. Put up in hotel. Flight back next day, arrived 24 hours after we should have.
No replacement pilot on board.
I did write to them, filled in application form etc but they initlally refused then blanked me.
Is this liable for compensation?

I think the pilot falling ill mid-flight could reasonably be described as an extraordinary circumstance. But what effort did Monarch make to get you home from France as quickly as possible? If they took 24 hours, this suggests to me that they failed the second part of the "Wallentin test". (If you don't know what that is, you need either to read my guide or see if a NWNF lawyer will take on your case.)

gazza97

Monarch MON 3727 Sharm El Sheik to Manchester May 2009






It was originally delayed by 12 hours coming out from Manchester as they had to wait for a part to arrive from overseas and then for it to be fitted. We were taken to a hotel after the first 3 hours of sitting in the airport

Then when we got on board the plane the following day there was another technical fault (a warning light would not go out) so we were put back into a hotel after we sat in the plane for another 3 hours. 2 engineers eventually flew out from the UK with another part to fix the problem. The total delay was 39 hours 23 mins.


Do you think this is a valid claim. As per everyone else Monarch are not responding to my claim form sent 4 weeks ago.

Vauban

Why wouldn't it be a valid claim? Have a read of my guide, if not already. You will most likely need to take Monarch to court.

Jinxs61

Vauban wrote: »

I think the pilot falling ill mid-flight could reasonably be described as an extraordinary circumstance. But what effort did Monarch make to get you home from France as quickly as possible? If they took 24 hours, this suggests to me that they failed the second part of the "Wallentin test". (If you don't know what that is, you need either to read my guide or see if a NWNF lawyer will take on your case.)

Thanks for the reply.


They said they had to wait for a new pilot to be flown to France, and whilst waiting for the new pilot, the cabin crew exceeded their legal duty hours and were required to take a period of minimum rest. The flight took off mid afternoon once the pilot had arrived, and the crew were rested. I have checked the paperwork and in fact we were due back to EM at 23.00, but didn't get back until 17.00 the next day. I recall we landed at Bordeaux at @22.00.


I thought that it was pre requisite to have a replacement pilot on board; I can understand no fault being attached for being ill, but should it have taken that long to source a replacement and for us to wait around from 22.00 one night to 16.00 the next day before the flight left?

Vauban

Jinxs61 wrote: »

I thought that it was pre requisite to have a replacement pilot on board;

Where did you read that?

Jinxs61 wrote: »

I can understand no fault being attached for being ill, but should it have taken that long to source a replacement and for us to wait around from 22.00 one night to 16.00 the next day before the flight left?

No it shouldn't. Hence my comment about the Wallentin test.

NoviceAngel

Apologies for the interruption and shameless plug,

For anybody following this thread if your case is currently 'stayed' could you help out with this info : HERE!

CB_Blue

CB_Blue wrote: »

Hi, has anyone had any joy with a claim from Flight MON3727 from Sharm to Manchester on the 10th June 2012? So far they have given me 3 different reasons for a technical fault - 1) the plane from Orlando was delayed via a technical fault so there was no plane available for us 2) The cargo door was defective 3) undergo non-destructive testing due to the discovery of damage to the cargo door. I have received £50 compensation though due to being abandoned in the htel for a furher 5 hours and having to pay extra to use the facilities there (but this took 18 months to get)...Im currenlty waiting for the Supreme Court ruling in October to see if they will reopen the case for me.

Hi all, Ive received an update from Monarch saying that they are reviewing this case again in view of the current Supreme Court ruling! Hopefully Will get a more appropriate answer this time!

glentoran99

CB_Blue wrote: »

Hi all, Ive received an update from Monarch saying that they are reviewing this case again in view of the current Supreme Court ruling! Hopefully Will get a more appropriate answer this time!

Woulndt get your hopes up, its just a generic email to everyone

Jinxs61

Vauban wrote: »

Where did you read that?



No it shouldn't. Hence my comment about the Wallentin test.

Apologies but I cannot find my way around this board so could you point me in the direction of the Wallantin test?


Thanks again.