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

russetred

I too received my rejection letter today for flight ZB5239 Luxor to Gatwick 14/07/2008.

"Our records show that due to an engine fault the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was unserviceable and therefore unsafe to fly. In order to reduce the length of your delay and minimise the disruption, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from our fleet.
Having considered the factual background of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption in your case 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."

At the time Monarch crew told passengers that due to the previous week's flight developing mechanical problems and being withdrawn Monarch had made an operational decision not to charter a replacement plane. We had to wait for a greece flight to get to Gatwick then fly out to get us, result a delay of 7hours and 41 minutes.
A NBA letter I presume?

The_Wingco

Add to Flights Denied: MON 1472 6/9/2011 LGW to Chania (Crete), delayed 8 hours. EC given as spoiler fault, no replacement aircraft available. Thanks Mark and all others for invaluable advice offered. Now off to MCOL.

andythomas

Just a bit of a suggestion-

It looks like we are all getting ECs as a reason not to pay and therefore we will have to go down the court route.

It would be useful for everyone to scan their rejection letters and upload them onto a common site so that others could use them to prove that their technical fault isnt an EC but a common occurrence. For example if you have a cracked windscreen which monarch are claiming EC, you would have copies of other letters to prove in court that the same fault has occurred on many other flights and is therefore not an EC!


Maybe we could setup a dropbox or something where everyone can upload their letters to?

Vauban

colswiz wrote: »

Just recieved a letter - ZB736 Gatwick to Malaga 14th July 2012- denied compensation.......yes you guess it EC .....another Cracked Windscreen :mad:

I see the other (preceding or following) flight has been logged for this by Mark already. A bit like my flight from Sharm, which was caused by a crack in the preceding flight.

Not very extraordinary. As we all keep saying.

urban469

Centipede100 wrote: »

Agree totally with your assertion that this seems to have been a problem with another aircraft rather than the one tasked with your flight. Absolutely not extraordinary circumstances in that case. So I would say good news for you rather than bad!

I'm going to send my NBA now. But one question: on the Monarch claim form I filled in, I selected the 50% of €250 option, which (as has been established on this forum) is a silly game they're playing. There is no 50% option!

So have I shot myself in the foot? Should I claim for €250 in my NBA and in court (if it gets that far)? Or can they say I've already stated that my claim is €125?

urban469

andythomas wrote: »

Just a bit of a suggestion-

It looks like we are all getting ECs as a reason not to pay and therefore we will have to go down the court route.

It would be useful for everyone to scan their rejection letters and upload them onto a common site so that others could use them to prove that their technical fault isnt an EC but a common occurrence. For example if you have a cracked windscreen which monarch are claiming EC, you would have copies of other letters to prove in court that the same fault has occurred on many other flights and is therefore not an EC!


Maybe we could setup a dropbox or something where everyone can upload their letters to?

Unfortunately, this is what the CAA has to say:
"Despite the word extraordinary, it does not necessarily mean it is a rare event, it just has to be outside of the airline’s control."

4poc

urban469 wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is what CAA has to say:u
"Despite the word extraordinary, it does not necessarily mean it is a rare event, it just has to be outside of the airline’s control."

A cracked windscreen or any other tech difficulty may mean that it is outside airline's control, but putting contingency in place for an ageing fleet is within the airline's control, especially when problem occurs in previous flights or even previous days as is in some cases. But Monarch rely on people happy to spend hours on airport floors, waiting for when another aircraft becomes available or for spare parts to be flown from goodness knows where; this is how they see themselves doing business.

cosmo21

Surely operating a fleet of aircraft which aren't falling apart is within the airline's control?

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is what the CAA has to say:
"Despite the word extraordinary, it does not necessarily mean it is a rare event, it just has to be outside of the airline’s control."

Centipede is the expert here, but I think we need to be precise, because it is really important. The CAA is right that the frequency with which an incident might occur does not affect whether it is "extraordinary" or not. In fact there are two important criteria - both of which must be fulfilled.

Let's go to the text:

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless ...

[1] that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and

[2] are beyond its actual control.

Regarding the second point, the legislation talks about "all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations", which still has some ambiguity, I grant you.

But it's pretty clear to me that, taken together, things like cracked windscreens cannot qualify as an extrardinary circumstance.

suelees1

dorisc wrote: »

i was on the same flight and have sent in all claims forms received letter today 19th feb from monarch with the excuse i expected of extraordinary circumstance the excuse they gave was delay from Sharm el Sheikh because of problems with wing on this aircraft leading to all delays relating to this aircraft. After investigating this excuse i found there eas problems with a flight from Sharm el sheikh but this happened on the 29th sept. Considering our flight was due to depart 30th sept i feel that the company had more than enought time to put something into place in order to avoid delays to other aircraft. There is another point that concerns the usage of extraordinary circumstances as the excuse for our delay the flight was from a non EU country and i dont think under these circumstance it applies I am about to put pen to paper and contact the CAA. Hope this helps and you do the same;)

Thanks very much. After seeing the reasons for this delay on the original post I've just spent aeons trawling through from page 1 _pale__pale__pale_ so I could liaise with you about it but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the same flight.

Ours was ZB532 Man to PMI on 09.04.2011

Mark2Mark - can you amend the OP list please. Monarch's reason to me for the delay was rudder defect