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

Sedge123

http://www.bar-uk.org/i/Govt_and_info_updates/LettertoAirlines10112014_IO.pdf

This one. I think this is how it reads but would welcome comments.

NoviceAngel

Sedge123 wrote: »

http://www.bar-uk.org/i/Govt_and_info_updates/LettertoAirlines10112014_IO.pdf

The_CAA wrote:

The Wallentin-Hermann judgment still applies and there may be technical faults that are not inherent in the ordinary operation of a carrier’s activity, and can therefore constitute an extraordinary circumstance. I would reference in particular paragraph 261 of the judgment.
This deals with the issue of hidden manufacturing defects. This example represents a rather unusual contingency that will already be known to airlines - if they have not heard from the manufacturer about a fault, it does not apply. Such faults remain on the updated list of incidents published on our list that could constitute an extraordinary circumstance:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2211/LettertoAirlines03072014_IO_attachment.pdf

This one. I think this is how it reads but would welcome comments.

Thanks so much for posting this...

First of all you have my apologies, because after spending half an hour on the CAA website archive, I could find no reference!

WHY???

Because the CAA are tantamount to telling the airlines how to further avoiding paying legitimate claims... by highlighting from the NEB wishlist, the fact that they can now announce all technical shortcomings as 'hidden manufacturing defects' ....

Over the last few months we have been busy blaming the airlines, when the seed was planted by our new friends the CAA, betrayal of the highest order :mad:...

After reading this quite a few times, you could say that we are friends again with the CAA the wording used 'heard from the manufacturer' :iloveyou: but it's interpretation could be looked at in different ways, they then reference the defunked (thanks JP) NEB wishlist! I think the CAA are walking a tightrope, who's friends are they really ? It's a very badly worded document, and I think that was deliberate.

NoviceAngel

Sedge123

That's what I thought. The list referenced in this document was published in July 14 so before the Huzar case outcome. Surely this would suggest that the list is superseded by the Huzar ruling and then this guidance letter.

I "think" this strengthens my case?

NoviceAngel

Sedge123 wrote: »

That's what I thought. The list referenced in this document was published in July 14 so before the Huzar case outcome. Surely this would suggest that the list is superseded by the Huzar ruling and then this guidance letter.

I "think" this strengthens my case?

I'm not sure it does.....

The CAA letter after translation says allegedly,

Ok you've now got to pay claims post Huzar, but hey, you can avoid paying by referencing any of the points in our wishlist, specifically the 'Hidden manufacturing defect' clause, because that's a genuine EC, although you should be notified by the manufacturer but we at the CAA have to say that because we are the passengers friend, and we still want our Xmas bonus from the you the airlines, if we think of any more ways you can avoid paying, we'll let you know ....

Vauban

I agree with your assessment Sedge - I think this is very helpful indeed. The wording is not in fact ambiguous:

I would reference in particular paragraph 261 of the [Wallentin] judgment. This deals with the issue of hidden manufacturing defects. This example represents a rather unusual contingency that will already be known to airlines - if they have not heard from the manufacturer about a fault, it does not apply.

The CAA's view is that, for the technical failure to be considered a manufacturing defect, the airline will need to have been advised of this by the manufacturer. The airline will not be able to address this point, except to say they disagree with the CAA and their interpretation is not legally binding. I suspect most judges, when presented with this and a copy of the Huzar judgement, will not require much more persuading.

Well done for finding it, Sedge - I salute you!

Edit: In fact, the reference in Wallentin is also very clear - I had forgotten how ir clarifies a manufacturing defect:

That would be the case [an extraordinary circumstance], for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety.

In other words, it's about the grounding of aircraft fleets following a manufacturers advisory, affecting all relevant craft. Not just a part failing on a plane "prematurely".

NoviceAngel

I suppose you have to read around all the guff in the letter, to get at the crux, I'm not as confident as Vauban, but then again I haven't studied and learnt all the regs from top to bottom, let alone written a guide, so he must be right, but the letter is still not clear to me, even after PtLVs explanation.

jhaytch

MONARCH FLIGHT 305 09/06/12

After refusal with monarch they have now paid out on this flight,not before time threatened with nba and have just recieved compensation HAPPY DAYS

JPears

Novice - defunct
I know we put the fun into funky though

dsh1979

I've just received a email from monarch regarding
Flight Details: MON306 Sanford – Manchester 17th September 2014.

Paying out in full with no legal action and no threat of it either.

legal_magpie

It's the footnote on the first page which is the key to this. It isn't ambiguous at all. At long last the CAA have done something right