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

suelees1

Mark2spark wrote: »

Yours was the main one I was trying to find!! as it appears there's two different EC's been offered for the same flight :undecided[/Q

Not too sure about this Mark. Dorisc in 656 has responded to my post as though s/he was on the same flight as me but the dates don't tally at all.

I don't know whether this poster had seen the flight number and simply assumed...

C'MON DORISC WHERE ARE YOU ?

daveadamson

Well the deadline for Monarch to reply to my NBA is tomorrow (14 days). Has anyone else sent a NBA that has exceeded it's deadline?

Vauban

daveadamson wrote: »

Well the deadline for Monarch to reply to my NBA is tomorrow (14 days). Has anyone else sent a NBA that has exceeded it's deadline?

Yes. So I have taken them to Court. After all, it wasn't a Notice Before Inaction, was it?:D

Mark2spark

worldwize wrote: »

Another EC to add to the list ZB853 26/06/2012 Larnaca to Luton 10hr delay. Must be the quickest response ever sent the claim in Feb 20th acknowledged receipt on Mon 25th got my refusal to day. My original post is no 956 Monarch,s reply to my claim is on the aircraft,s previous flight the 1st officer became incapacitated and another 1st officer had to be flown to Gibraltar to fly the plane back to Luton but fog held it up even longer. He then had to fly the plane to Larnaca.I believe this is a knock on effect and therefore not an EC also the fog is incidental as we would have been over 4hrs delayed anyway. Has anyone any other thoughts on this your thoughts would be welcome

Well Monarch have claimed all along that they were working on a 'flight by flight' basis, so someone else from that flight must have already claimed and Monarch have now determined that it's an EC the reason for the delay.
Not that it was likely to be anything else

Staff sickness is not an EC, unless it happens in flight and becomes a safety issue.

daveadamson

Absolutely! And I intend to do the same. What stage are you at then?

Vauban wrote: »

Yes. So I have taken them to Court. After all, it wasn't a Notice Before Inaction, was it?:D

worldwize

Thanks for your reply Mark,the crew on our flight said he had had an accident at Gib.What do you mean by flight by flight basis

urban469

Vauban wrote: »

Urban,

You really need to read the judgements. They are not that long, and they are not inpenetrable. You can even read just the most important bits, which are linked from the FAQ. The court is pretty clear about the question you are raising - indeed that was the very raison d'etre of one of the cases.

Thanks Vauban. I know how annoying it is when people don't read the stickies I did trawl through the FAQs and I keep coming across this idea of something being 'out of the airline's control' and something 'not inherent in the operation of an airline'. My fear is that they could argue that engine failure is out of their control and isn't inherent in the operation of an airline.

The only specific thing (i.e. part of a judgement) that I can pin down is this:

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

And this bit which finally seems to explain what 'out of the airline's control' actual means:

26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned

Is it enough to rely on those two points in previous cases? In my MCOL would I be required to refer to particular paragraphs in particular cases to back up my argument? I just want to make it water-tight.

Oh, and which case was the raison d'etre on the tech/EC issue?

OmniJames

Another one to add to the list:

ZB274 Gatwick to Barcelona 1st July 2012. 5h30 Delay.

"Our record show the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the aircraft anti skid system, after inspection was declared unsafe. As a result and in order to minimise the disruption to passengers, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft ... blah blah extraordinary circumstances"

Pretty extraordinary from Monarch to not have a plane within 5 hours to fly in (they knew about the delay at least an hour before takeoff).

So next action - was thinking of contacting the CAA but is it worth it? I've read people taking them to court but I'm a little wary of doing it and don't have that much time at the moment.

111KAB

OmniJames wrote: »

I've read people taking them to court but I'm a little wary of doing it and don't have that much time at the moment.

May as well use a no win/no fee firm then as you will get around 70% of what is owed to you assuming case in your favour or wait until you have time as you have another 5 years before time runs out to claim.

Vauban

urban469 wrote: »

Thanks Vauban. I know how annoying it is when people don't read the stickies I did trawl through the FAQs and I keep coming across this idea of something being 'out of the airline's control' and something 'not inherent in the operation of an airline'. My fear is that they could argue that engine failure is out of their control and isn't inherent in the operation of an airline.

The only specific thing (i.e. part of a judgement) that I can pin down is this:

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

And this bit which finally seems to explain what 'out of the airline's control' actual means:

26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned

Is it enough to rely on those two points in previous cases? In my MCOL would I be required to refer to particular paragraphs in particular cases to back up my argument? I just want to make it water-tight.

Oh, and which case was the raison d'etre on the tech/EC issue?

Have a look at the Wallentin-Hermann judgement here:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62007CJ0549&lang1=en&type=NOT&ancre=

You'll see from para 11 that the cancellation of the flight was caused by a "complex engine defect" discovered the day before.

Read paras 20-27 in particular.