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

Eve4ever

Missymoo123 wrote: »

I would like to know to see for myself any delays. If the same craft is delayed constantly with technical issues they shouldn't have it on such a tight schedule. I suspect the age of the craft may have something to do with the delays and if this is so extra maintenance is essential.

Are you assuming that Monarch are telling you the truth? I'm expecting to told the usual BS about technical issues when my letter arrives in the next week but I know the truth is in my case they chose to cancel the earlier flight and just bump all those passengers on to the afternoon flight.

I would save your energy for the small claims court.

abbie_c

DavePollard wrote: »

I am new to this forum and I am also having problems with Monarch airlines over this issue. I will not add to the lists of details already on this forum. May I ask if anyone has stated a petition for Watchdog or written to Simon Calder who often appears on BBC discussing such matters.( I am consideng contacting him but cannot find an E mail address to send my comments) What about Money Mail or other newspapers. Maybe with more bad publicity Monarch will not take such a high handed stance. The higher the profile is to the general public the more uncomfortable it will make Monarch

I've written to the consumer expert at Guardian but haven't heard anything. Will write to a different one next week. Starting a petition with Watchdog sounds like a good idea. If you look at how many flights have been rejected for EC, and multiply by 200 or 300 passengers - that's a hell of a lot of people!

Bazzalad

Just had e mail through with usual Intro and then refusal for flight,

ZB535 Palma to Manchester on 09/10/2012.

The reason given was fault with number 2 engine on scheduled plane and no spare capacity immediately available, used next available Plane.

Judging by the "stack" of extraordinary circumstances that could have been reasonably prevented by Monarch" it seems that they have a fleet of planes which are unreliable, poorly serviced and being run to the limits and beyond because of the extra routes taken on by Monarch. Therefore perhaps they could have reasonably been prevented by having sufficient planes to cover the routes and some back up availability.

daveadamson

Mark2spark wrote: »

Hi, I've added this to the OP. Can you reconfirm the flight number please? Just that another poster has also registered a Mombasa delay, (different date) and the flight number is slightly different, 3693 not 2693 as you state, cheers, Mark.

Hi,

That's definitely the number. I've send a NBA, in 13 days I will apply to the small claims court and update the forum

ThumbRemote

I have today received a letter from Monarch in response to my claim, regarding my flight ZB654 15th August 2010 - delayed 9 hours from Manchester to Malaga.

The pertinent paragraphs from the letter are:

Re: ZB654 Manchester to Malaga on 14th August 2010

Our records show that due to a number two engine fluid leak that rendered an aircraft unserviceable and a number one engine exhaust gas temperature fault which deemed another aircraft unsafe to fly, there were insufficient aircraft within the fleet to operate your flight on time.

As a consequence of these events and in order to reduce the delay to your flight, passengers on your flight and passengers on a Manchester to Ibiza flight were combined on to a larger aircraft which then operated from Manchester to Malaga, then on to Ibiza before returning back to Manchester.

It was also unfortunate that despite Monarch's best efforts, there was no availability to transfer your flight to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance...

I am aware that they have printed the wrong date on the letter. In fact, I think the flight on the 14th was heavily delayed as well and it appears they have given me the details for the wrong date (I do not recall being put together with another flight).

However, assuming this is the story they stick to...would this be classed as extraordinary circumstances, there being multiple aircraft out of service?

Also, since they bring it up, should I be asking them to provide details of what actions they took to charter an aircraft from a third party operator?

jhaytch

just read that flight mon 305 has been rejected for compensation with an engine vibration surely this is not a extrodinary circumstance thought technical faults were not allowed in eu claims what is the next step if they had told me that at the airport i would have not flown on the plane full stop

jhaytch

Centipede100 wrote: »

Firstly, it would be useful to punctuate your post!

Secondly, your choice as to whether you either contact the CAA for their opinion or commence a legal claim or try the CAA first before starting a legal claim.

apologies centpede,just drives me mad,all the reasons are technical faults and they are not valid reasons.
can i not just start legal action against monarch and how do i go about this

lisa4874

Why are all Monarchs replies to do with engines. I know that the aft purser on my flight Mark said that another aircraft had had a bird strike on the windscreen!!!!

What should I do now? Do write another letter to them or go straight to the CAA or EU

Please help

Thanks xx

lisa4874

daveadamson what is nba sorry for my stupidity

daveadamson

lisa4874 wrote: »

daveadamson what is nba sorry for my stupidity

Apologies accepted

NBA = Notice Before Action, e.g. Threatening Letter immediately preceding the initial "snot-o-gram" giving a deadline to settle.

P.S. You can use snot-o-gram providing you reference me