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

Tyzap

batman44 wrote: »

Knock on, I dont know what case that has been delt with in or is it in wallentin - A particular flight on a particular day etc?

In your case they are quoting something HHJ Platts said that was dismissed in the appeal - reasoning?

Our lord vauban has picked 2 out that are in there but don't jump out at you.

As a LIP I will request my choice of court Manchester.

I would of thought the judge will throw this out before that.

I'll send you some details and my thoughts via PM.

JPears

"however it can occur at any time and cannot be predicated or avoided."
Few technical faults can be predicated or avoided otherwise they would avoid them!
A nonsense argument.
As I've said before (and they have gone to pains to specifically deny) it is more than likely said bolts etc are picked up in the maintenance hangers when removed, dropped and replaced on aircraft. Alot of bolts are probably single use and if removed have to be replaced as they have been stretched when tightened. Why would there be bolts on the runway? If they are dropping off airplanes, thats a worry.
How do they know it was picked up on Palma runway? Could have been there many flights. I drove 1000 miles down thru France without knowing there was a screw in my tyre - and I do check my tyres all over regularly as I'm old and old school. When they do a visual inspection, how do they check the bit of the trye thats on the ground? Take hand brake off and rolll it back a bit?

JPears

[FONT=&quot]"8) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that as the fault was caused by FOD requiring immediate assessment and rectification it is considered an unpredictable and unexpected event which is deemed as extraordinary in accordance with point 20 of the Guidance on Extraordinary Circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the European Commission and the amended version released by the CAA in April 2015."

BFM (bovine faecal matter), as we all know......

batman44

NoviceAngel wrote: »

My golly gosh this thread has got busy, I'll have a proper read through it all in the morning but if PtLV has helped, then congratulations on your compensation Batman

Your missing the fun, it's been quiet of late so I thought I would spice thing up with a good ol' debate on the Monarch defence:rotfl:

JPears

lol its a bit of a onesided debate. Monarch's defence sucks, end of

batman44

JPears wrote: »

"however it can occur at any time and cannot be predicated or avoided."
Few technical faults can be predicated or avoided otherwise they would avoid them!
A nonsense argument.
As I've said before (and they have gone to pains to specifically deny) it is more than likely said bolts etc are picked up in the maintenance hangers when removed, dropped and replaced on aircraft. Alot of bolts are probably single use and if removed have to be replaced as they have been stretched when tightened. Why would there be bolts on the runway? If they are dropping off airplanes, thats a worry.
How do they know it was picked up on Palma runway? Could have been there many flights. I drove 1000 miles down thru France without knowing there was a screw in my tyre - and I do check my tyres all over regularly as I'm old and old school. When they do a visual inspection, how do they check the bit of the trye thats on the ground? Take hand brake off and rolll it back a bit?

I will throw that in as a preamble!

Pow:T:THow do they know it was picked up on Palma runway?
One of professor Vaubans points! Half a pie and half pint Vauban owes you. lol

batman44

Off to bed now, will start on the counter argument after the weekend with all you input thrown in as well. The cover letter from Monarch to the claims centre is a laugh! A complex matter for a flat tyre basically and needs explaining, lol.

All this is just wind to put me off, I took TC on with a bigger claim and issue and won, so this is going to be a lot simpler, no evidence to collect.

Vauban

Well that was one of my subsidiary points, to be fair. The two main ones relate to points of law on which Monarch is either ignorant or disingenuous. You can take your pick - in every sense.

(PS Ironically, I'm sending this post from 39,000 ft up, just east of Bucharest via Emirates free wifi. Who'd have thunk such a thing?)

111KAB

Due to the regularity of the problem - either deflation or shredding - most major airports (of which PMI is one) carry stocks.


One of Monarch's problems is that they are reluctant to let any other engineers other than their own to touch their planes. This is partly down to their arrogance (although this completely back-fired in relation to their recent !!!!-up of a repair to a Jet2 Boeing) and sometimes due to the lease terms of the plane.


Tyre/wheel change is a simple operation however still takes around 3 hours however as the link I provide indicates the airlines are starting to fine tune this so as not to fall foul of 261/2004.


http://avherald.com/h?article=487ae83d&opt=0

Tyzap

JPears wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]"8) [/FONT]The Defendant submits that as the fault was caused by FOD requiring immediate assessment and rectification it is considered an unpredictable and unexpected event which is deemed as extraordinary in accordance with point 20 of the Guidance on Extraordinary Circumstances from the National Enforcement Bodies across Europe published by the European Commission and the amended version released by the CAA in April 2015."

BFM (bovine faecal matter), as we all know......

IMO point 20 should not still be in that list, but lets face it, that list is now also out of date and in need of updating as bird strikes are still in there too.