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

LBD

Thats why they wont pay us then lol....

Mark2spark

JPears wrote: »

with all of the techs claimed as ecs have you guys looked at which aircraft these oiccurred on? If there is a repeat history with aircraft then that cannot be EC, just poor maintenance.

The Wallentin Hermann judgement embraces this, basically it's neither here nor there if the fault occurs repeatedly.
Just a factor that may or may not be taken into account.

"2. The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded."

Mark2spark

It has also occurred to me that the 'Denied Boarding' terminology could be applied to a passenger who has checked in on time, and presented themselves at the boarding gate at the correct time, only to be 'denied boarding' as the plane isn't there/isn't ready etc, due to the on going delay.
Just a play on words, I know.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Since denied boarding is a rather more clear-cut situation under the Reg, I would not be quite so comfortable with the blanket advice that the issue affected a prior flight and therefore ECs do not apply.

I'm no lawyer, but my own reading of this is closer to Centipede's as well. Not least as one of the key points about being denied boarding is that the flight concerned is actually taking off - just not with you on it.

I take Mark's well-made point about the logic of allowing knock-on delays - it could potentially go back for days. But I think, on reflection, that the longer a delay occurs (due to a problem that a plane experienced earlier) the more difficult it is for an airline to defend, since the expectation is that they would make alternative provision in the meantime.

That said, the stipulation - in the specific context of meteorological conditions - that ECs apply only "to the flight concerned" is an interesting principle, that would suggest that knock-on disruptions to the fleets caused by weather are not ECs. And if this holds for weather, why not for other problems too (which are arguably more obviously in an airlines control)?

Ooh, now my head hurts ...

helpneededprettyquick

HI Everyone , looking for some advice , we placed our claim to Monarch after our flight was delayed back in July 2012 from London Gatwick - Sanford MON327 it was delayed for 12 hours ... I submitted paperwork etc and hey ho have finally got a response ... it is the usual letter that I have read on here re compensation etc etc and then the bit that matters ..............

Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate developed an inoperable R1 door, this resulted in the door having to be removed and a replacement door was soucred from Airbus in Hamburg . In view of the length of time that rectification would take and to avoid further delay we arranged for an aircraft chartered from a third party operator to operate the flight on our behalf. The available carrier Pullmantour Air was brought to Gatwick from its base in LIsbon. Unfortunately as a result your flight was subject to an unavoidable delay. Having considered the factual background of this incident i am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have been prevented by Monarch I am unable to pay your claim for compensation.................


First I guess I would like to know if this is right is this it now or would it be worth trying the courts ... also for anyone else on this flight this is the kind of response you may get if you are waiting for an answer ....

Thanks

Mark2spark

The general consensus of opinion is that a tech issue such as that would not be an EC.
Otherwise ALL tech issues will be EC's and there wouldn't be a circumstance within the ruling where compensation would be paid.

4poc

4poc wrote: »

Claim denied for:
MON5953 Corfu to Gatwick 26 July 2008 - "the aircraft originally scheduled to operate your flight developed a ruptured left hand left bleed duct on a previous flight. This rendered the aircraft unservicable and unsafe to operate"
Not sure if this means the flight before the flight before our flight was rendered unservicable...
.....................
This is getting very interesting... i rang Monarch and asked them to explain which flight developed the problem. So it was the flight before THE PREVIOUS flight, that developed the problem on final approach into Faro! (ex ...(don't know) to Faro / Faro to Corfu & then our flight Corfu to Gatwick... so where does the extraordinary circumstance defence stops? What about the poor people at Gatwick waiting for OUR plane to arrive etc etc.
Surely there is the measure of "reasonable-ness" that plays a part in court.
The other thing to consider is what measures does Monarch have in place to minimise disruption. Dispatch another plane from London as soon as fault was discovered in Faro, perhaps? Flight London - Corfu does not take 8+hours...but why would they send an empty plane when people can wait for hours on an airport floor ...

MontyWomble

Thought a few of you may find the below interesting, found it on another website. I know is completely hear say, but seems to indicate Monarch were having problems maintaining their fleet which is similar to what was in our delay letter prior to boarding.

What do you think? I'm simply trying to compile as much evidence as possible! And yes I know isn't partiually strong evidence, but am hoping that Monarch may struggle to prove this wasn't the case.

When we boarded the Aircraft the next morning, the Captain told us that the reason for the delay, was that two of the Monarch Fleet had been deemed unfit to fly and the Company was having difficulty maintaining their schedule.
http://www.tsilivi.co.uk/index.php?topic=11933.0

MontyWomble

Centipede100 wrote: »

Purely unattributable hearsay which even if it were true cannot be presented as part of your witness statement.

Definitely agree with you on that, but what I'm trying to poorly explain is that there were some clear issues overall last Spring / Summer time with the Monarch fleet.

Just feel that this contributed to the length and potentially even the delay and should in my case somehow be raised as wouldn't want my decision to be based purely on a cracked winscreen being EC or not?

glentoran99

havent been on here in a while and see there is now a comprehensive list and a running theme, technical fault = EC, if you want to add the reason to the monbassa gatwick flight mark it was "ruptured start duct in the number one engine"