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

kecat

Mark2spark wrote: »

I've added this to the OP, I'm assuming it was last year, 2012?
Interesting that Monarch fly both ZB and MON flights into Sharm.
14 day NBA giving them another chance and court for you then kecat?

Yes it was 2012.
I will not be letting it go so yes they will get one more chance then to court.
Its amazing how many rejected claims there have been in the last couple of days!

Vauban

keftin wrote: »

Today received a refusal on EC grounds....aircraft developed a rudder defect that rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly etc etc etc...

I think it quite reasonable that if they think they have an arguable defence, then it should be encumbent upon me to rebut such a defence in a claims action. Additionally, if the faults being given by Monarch are genuine faults resulting in delay, it demonstrates a sound approach to passenger safety regardless of whether it exonerates them of being liable for compensation claims.

Keftin, you are clearly a patient and reasonable person. But you are mistaken too, at least on a specific point. Under the EU legislation, if airlines wish to claim extraordinary circumstances, it is actually incumbent on them to prove it: you don't have to rebut anything.

You might argue that the number of reported faults shows that Monarch are picking up the problems. Or you might feel - as I do - that it shows they have an aged fleet and are stuggling to maintain it. One previous poster claims to have had an email to Monarch themselves, precisely on that point.

yann

ZB897 Tenerife to Luton 26/06/2012 delay 6:03

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was required to divert to Belgrade during a previous flight due to a medical emergency. As the aircraft was overweight for landing, upon arrival in Belgrade an overweight landing check was required. Unfortunately, there was no suitable engineering coverage in the local area, therefore we arranged for a qualified Monarch engineer to travel from the UK to Belgrade in order to perform the safety inspection.
As a consequence of the diversion and the subsequent engineering checks required, the operating crew exceeded their legal duty hours and were required to take a period of minimum rest. Upon completion of safety checks and the requisite rest period, the flight was able to continue on with the scheduled programme. Unfortunately these events led to a delay in the scheduled departure time of your flight. In order to reduce the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft within the Monarch fleet.

Is this an extraordinary circumstance? The mentioned emergency landing was at least 2 scheduled flights of that aircraft before ours. In my oppinion they had enough time to find another aircraft - especially at Luton. What do you think?

sarahb161

Hi Yann,

We were on the same flight and received the same reply yesterday - as expected, unfortunately. I was going to ask the same thing - how many flights is it reasonable for them to say were affected by one incident? It would be interesting to know which other flights were affected by one passenger being ill!

Ours seems to be the only flight so far where they are not claiming a tech issue. I wasn't sure what was meant by the flight being "overweight" as this seems to be the key reason that we were delayed - i.e. if the plane wasn't overweight, it could have taken off again straight away, without the need for a Monarch safety person travelling from the UK, the cabin crew wouldn't have been out of time and there wouldn't have been a delay -or at least not such a long one. Surely it is Monarch's responsibility to ensure their planes are not overweighht?! Could this be the clincher for our case?!

BigRedManc

On December 4th 2012 I submitted Monarch's claim form in relation to a 27 hour delay on the above flight. No official explanation was given by Monarch but other passengers learned that the incoming flight into Lanzarote was diverted to Fuerteventura due to bad weather at which point a fault was found with the aircraft. It was the following day before a replacement aircraft arrived.
Today, February 22nd I received a letter from Monarch denying my claim for a flight from Grenoble to Gatwick in March 2010. No relation to my claim whatsoever. Is this a genuine incompetent error, or a delaying tactic?

111KAB

A plane can go overweight if suddenly there is extra handbaggage or say on a winter flight if there is an excess of skis. The norm is for the airline to ask for people prepared not to fly and compensate them accordingly. This happened on an EasyJet flight some time ago where EJ were not prepared to increase their offer however passengers who wanted to go on the flight had a 'whip round' and topped up the EJ offer !!!!

Reemas

First court claim submitted:T

I wait in anticipation.....will keep you all posted.

yann

Hi Sarah,
I searched other forum threads and it seems that the overweight check is quite common in case of emergency landings due to the amount of fuel left in tanks.

rubybloo

Got some good news from Monarch this afternoon.

Dear Miss Rubybloo,

Flight Details: 22/12/2012 MON6072 Gatwick to Grenoble

I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.

I can confirm that your claim for compensation has now been assessed and you are entitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due to your delay. In line with the above a cheque to the value of £218.55 (the Sterling equivalent of €250.00 based on today’s Reuters exchange rate) will be forwarded to each claimant within fourteen working days. For your reference if you have another claim for an alternative delayed flight to the above this will be responded to separately in due course.

Best regards EU Claim Team

Monarch gave us the ski holiday from hell at Xmas time – 21 hours delayed on the way out and 4.5 hours delayed on the way back, between Gatwick and Grenoble. The reason given was a technical aircraft issue and then staff being out-of-hours but realistically, it was abysmal that they couldn’t reassign a plane/wet lease for a single 2 hour flight. We have not heard back on the second delayed flight.

klint

BigRedManc wrote: »

Today, February 22nd I received a letter from Monarch denying my claim for a flight from Grenoble to Gatwick in March 2010. No relation to my claim whatsoever.

You're not the only one! See my earlier post, the also got me mixed up with someone else.

BigRedManc wrote: »

Is this a genuine incompetent error, or a delaying tactic?

Haven't you heard of Hanlon's Razor? It says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."