Is this an Extrordinary Circumstance?

Wardy23

I've just had what seems to be a standard reply from Monarch to a claim I submitted through their formal proceedure...

Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate your flight developed a leak from the green hydraulic system upon arrival into Tenerife on a previous flight. Engineers attended the aircraft to carry out a full investigation and they established that a pipe to the number two hydraulic pump had failed. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until a replacement pipe could be fitted. We then had to make arrangements for the replacement pipe, along with an engineer to be flown down to Tenerife to carry out the rectification work. As a consequence, the departure of 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.

My thinking is that it is not and they are simply playing a numbers game in that if 100 people complain and all get the same response, only 30 may challenge it therefore reducing their costs. If so how should I reply?

111KAB

Wardy23 wrote: »

I've just had what seems to be a standard reply from Monarch to a claim I submitted through their formal proceedure...

Our records show that the aircraft that was originally scheduled to operate your flight developed a leak from the green hydraulic system upon arrival into Tenerife on a previous flight. Engineers attended the aircraft to carry out a full investigation and they established that a pipe to the number two hydraulic pump had failed. This rendered the aircraft unserviceable and unsafe to operate until a replacement pipe could be fitted. We then had to make arrangements for the replacement pipe, along with an engineer to be flown down to Tenerife to carry out the rectification work. As a consequence, the departure of 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.

My thinking is that it is not and they are simply playing a numbers game in that if 100 people complain and all get the same response, only 30 may challenge it therefore reducing their costs. If so how should I reply?

Firstly read the Monarch specific thread and post on there. The extraordinary circumstance Monarch refer to is a technical problem with the aircraft and technical problems are not extraordinary indeed they are common place. Aircraft go 'tech' on numerous occasions - more often for Monarch Airlines as they have an older fleet of aircraft.

On the assumption that your delay was beyond 3 hours you have a valid reason to claim. Unfortunately bearing in mind your carrier you will have to pursue this claim via small claims court or a no win no fee firm.

Mark2spark

Monarch didn't present a plane on time for YOUR flight.
Forget all the nonsense about what happened on some other flight.
NBA and then court for you.

Bassington

Since Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia the carrier has to prove that the technical problem could not have been avoided by taking measures appropriate to the situation.

There was an episode of Watchdog that talked about it just recently. As a new member I can't post a link, but you should be able to find it by googling.

Vauban

There's a very interesting article on this, written by the Law Company Bird & Bird in 2009, that explains Wallentin in easy to get language. You can access it here: http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Denied_boarding_regulations.Aspx

Its conclusion is worth reprinting:

The Court is effectively saying that an aircraft “going tech” is not an unusual occurrence for airlines and, on that basis, such events cannot amount to “extraordinary circumstances”. While it did not say that a technical problem can never be an “extraordinary circumstance”, the likely effect of the decision is that it will be much more difficult for airlines to escape paying compensation under the Regulations where flights are cancelled due to technical problems. To that extent, the decision is very much a victory for passengers.