Monarch initial rejection ... help

Gabster1

HI all

Not sure if anyone can offer any guidance or thoughts on the following.

I contacted Monarch little over 3 weeks ago in respect to a 5hour delay Manchester - Las Palmas June 2012,
a little backgound: on checkin we were told of a long delay. The delay was originally scheduled for 4 hours, then delayed further due to an aircraft uprade and not having the sufficent crew to cover the aircraft so delayed a further 1 hour 45 mins.

Monarch have rejected the claim as follows
Our ecords show that due to disruption within the flying prgramme of the A321 Airbus, there were insufficent crew qualified to operate this type of Aircraft at the scheduled departuretime of your flight. Despire Monarchs best efforts to recruit a replacement crew from those members of staff on standby or days off, a delay to your flight was unavoidable. In order to reduce the length of delay, your flight was "upgraded" to an alternative A300 aircraft from within the feet., for which crew was available,
Having considered the factual backgound of this incident, we are satisfied that the disruption in your case was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have been reasonably prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are therefore unable to accept your claim ...

My question is, is this sufficent reason ?

the actual fact is the original delay was not due to crew but for the fact the Aircraft was not physically in Manchester, yes the flight was ultimatley upgraded to a larger aircraft requiring a larger crew however this was the reason for an extra delay. Not for the inital 4 hour delay advised upon at checkin.

Anyone with any thoughts greatly appreciated.

richardw

Would a District Judge think that's 'extraordinary circumstances ...despite reasonable measures....' ?

111KAB

Gabster1 wrote: »

My question is, is this sufficent reason ?

Anyone with any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Not sufficient reason - in fact far from it however you will probably have to go to court for resolution in your favour.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Not sufficient reason - in fact far from it however you will probably have to go to court for resolution in your favour.

This is a slam dunk case: it's Monarch's operational failings, not an extraordinary circumstance. You need to write them a Notice Before Action (their are templates here - including in the FAQs) giving them 14 days to settle. But, as 111KAB ruefully notes, you are going at least to have to start legal proceedings before Monarch will take you claims seriously.

It's a disgrace, but Monarch's strategem appears to be to deny almost all of the eligible claims in the belief that only a tiny fraction of the claimants will actually take their case to court - where Monarch could of course then settle on the proverbial steps. Their corporate reputation is taking a hammering, but their compensation bill will be much smaller ...

Gabster1

Thankyou all for your thoughts,

I will send a formal response rejecting their initial response and quote the legislation along with the factual information.
Do you think worth contacting CAA ?


I will keep you all updated,