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

keftin

Vauban wrote: »

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.

Yes, of course. But the legal onus is on them to prove it in court and not to me personally. My part in all this would be to rebut their evidence and thus prevent them from proving it in the eyes of a judge.

To simply state " I was delayed - prove it was not due to extraordinary circumstances", would leave anyone at the mercy of a small claims judge who probably knows nothing about the EU ruling.

howardbut

ZB7293 from Dubrovnik to Gatwick 14th July 2012

Delayed by more than 3hours
Refreshment provided

Claim refused by Monarch by post based on "cracked windscreen" reason.


Just in 2012 there are quite a few cracked windscreen according to the record we have gathered here!

MontyWomble

ginger_turnip wrote: »

add flight ZB737 from Malaga to Gatwick on 14/07/2012 to the long list of claims denied due to exceptional circumstances.On the day we were told by staff at Malaga that it was due to bad weather over the south of England.When we disputed this as all other airlines were taking off we were then told it was problems within the fleet.We wre delayed for 7 1/2 hours which was no fun with two kids under 2.They have told us it was a cracked windscreen and pane was diverted to Gatwick.Ihave noticed on this forum that another flight that day and one the following day also had problems.This seems to me to be a servicing issue and that surely is Monarchs fault.Anyone know if its worth complaining to CAA.We have never had a problem with Monarch before and we are flying with them later this year.Just feel very dissapointed.

Just noticed that Ginger Turnip mentions another Cracked Windscreen. If correct, this brings the grand total to 3. NOT the 2 stated in my letter from Monarch.

I know this may seem irrelevant, but now even 3 a year (I predict many more) isn't extrodinary surely?!

MontyWomble

montywomble wrote: »

just noticed that ginger turnip mentions another cracked windscreen. If correct, this brings the grand total to 3. Not the 2 stated in my letter from monarch.

I know this may seem irrelevant, but now even 3 a year (i predict many more) isn't extrodinary surely?!

and now 4 given the above post!!!

blondmark

ginger_turnip wrote: »

add flight ZB737 from Malaga to Gatwick on 14/07/2012 to the long list of claims denied due to exceptional circumstances.On the day we were told by staff at Malaga that it was due to bad weather over the south of England.When we disputed this as all other airlines were taking off we were then told it was problems within the fleet.We wre delayed for 7 1/2 hours which was no fun with two kids under 2.They have told us it was a cracked windscreen and pane was diverted to Gatwick.Ihave noticed on this forum that another flight that day and one the following day also had problems.This seems to me to be a servicing issue and that surely is Monarchs fault.Anyone know if its worth complaining to CAA.We have never had a problem with Monarch before and we are flying with them later this year.Just feel very dissapointed.

No it's not worth complaining to the CAA. The way forward is quite straightforward: you provide 14 days notice of the issue of proceedings and then you sue.

111KAB

There is now a facebook complains page .... http://www.facebook.com/Monarch?ref=ts&fref=ts#!/MonarchComplaints/info

blondmark

Chewitt73 wrote: »

Another flight to be added to the list of denied for ECs. In this case we were delayed by 24 hours:

Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate your flight developed an electronic management system fault, which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to fly. Despite exploring all conceivable options, there was no immediate availability within our own fleet to transfer your flight to another Monarch aircraft, or indeed to transfer passengers to an aircraft chartered from a third party operator. As a consequence, the fight departed as soon as an aircraft became available.

No problem - provide 14 days written notice of proceedings and then sue.

blondmark

lisafoster wrote: »

Just had the following EC response from Monarch
Re: ZB970 Birmingham to Malaga on 22nd August 2012

"Our records show that due to an aircraft experiencing an auxiliary power unit fault which rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate, there were insufficient aircraft from within our fleet to operate your flight on time. As a consequence your flight was unavoidably delayed. However, in order to reduce the delay, we transferred passengers from your flight on to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.

Having considered the factual background of this case, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given."


What a load of rubbish, there was an initial delay of 1 hr 40 mins, then, whilst we were at the boarding gate, a lady with a disabled passenger came to the front of the queue as they had not pre booked their seats or any disabled assistance (surely this should have been arranged by Monarch at check in). This then caused the further delay whilst they helped her on board (which caused us to miss our flight slot). As a result of missing the original flight slot we had to re-fuel and wait for a new flight slot (over 2 hours sat on the tarmac with no food or drinks from Monarch). The pilot stated that the delay was due to 'loading problems'. We eventually arrived in Malaga 3 hours & 50 minutes late. Would any of this be defined as EC?

No, none of it would. Provide 14 days notice of the service of proceedings and then sue.

blondmark

yann wrote: »

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?

No, it's the knock-on effect of alleged extraordinary circumstances which doesn't count. Give 14 days notice of the issue of proceedings and then sue.

kecat

rubybloo wrote: »

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.

Well done to you
However I really can't see how this one technical fault would be any different to most of the ones already listed that have been denied. I can't understand how they are deciding which few they are paying out on!