who is liable to pay the compensation?

tollycatslave

Hi folks, sorry if this subject has been covered in previous threads, our flight was delayed by 24 hrs Thomsons was who we booked flight with but it was Monarch who supplied the flight which was delayed, we stuck a claim in to Thomsons but they said it would have to be Monarch we claim from, so we put our claim into Monarch but letter back from Monarch today and they are saying our claim should be with Thomsons ......Help who do we claim from? thanks

romanby1

tollycatslave wrote: »

Hi folks, sorry if this subject has been covered in previous threads, our flight was delayed by 24 hrs Thomsons was who we booked flight with but it was Monarch who supplied the flight which was delayed, we stuck a claim in to Thomsons but they said it would have to be Monarch we claim from, so we put our claim into Monarch but letter back from Monarch today and they are saying our claim should be with Thomsons ......Help who do we claim from? thanks

I am willing to be corrected but I think it is the "Air Carrier" in your case. I suggest it is Monarch if it was a Monarch plane you actually flew in unless it was a leased in by Thomson. Who's name was on the ticket.

111KAB

romanby1 wrote: »

I am willing to be corrected but I think it is the "Air Carrier" in your case. I suggest it is Monarch if it was a Monarch plane you actually flew in unless it was a leased in by Thomson. Who's name was on the ticket.

Correct Monarch plane = Monarch problem. Presume you had a MON or ZB flight number prefix. Likely that you will have to pursue claim via courts so start off by reading FAQ's on page one of the Monarch thread.

dxc_chappie

111KAB wrote: »

Correct Monarch plane = Monarch problem. Presume you had a MON or ZB flight number prefix. Likely that you will have to pursue claim via courts so start off by reading FAQ's on page one of the Monarch thread.

I would agree with 111KAB. Article 3 "Scope" para. 5 of EU261/2004 states: "This Regulation shall apply to any operating air carrier providing transport to passengers covered by paragraphs 1 and 2. Where an operating air carrier which has no contract with the passenger performs obligations under this Regulation, it shall be regarded as doing so on behalf of the person having a contract with that passenger." which I would read as Monarch being liable for compensation. After all, wasn't it Monarch who delayed the flight?

Vauban

dxc_chappie wrote: »

I would agree with 111KAB. Article 3 "Scope" para. 5 of EU261/2004 states: "This Regulation shall apply to any operating air carrier providing transport to passengers covered by paragraphs 1 and 2. Where an operating air carrier which has no contract with the passenger performs obligations under this Regulation, it shall be regarded as doing so on behalf of the person having a contract with that passenger." which I would read as Monarch being liable for compensation. After all, wasn't it Monarch who delayed the flight?

Yes, but look at preamble no 7: "In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis."

So there is a bit of a debate, unfortunately. My take, having thought about this, is that if you fly under a ZB or MON flight number, then they are liable. But expect them to argue the point in court!

tollycatslave

QUOTE=romanby1;61602993]I am willing to be corrected but I think it is the "Air Carrier" in your case. I suggest it is Monarch if it was a Monarch plane you actually flew in unless it was a leased in by Thomson. Who's name was on the ticket.[/QUOTE]

Hi thanks for reply, it isThomson who is on our flight tickets, the letter we got back from Monarch today says "whilst we supplied the aircraft to operate your own flight the contractual agreement in place with Thomson Airways stipulates that claims of this nature do have to be presented to them" originally it was presented to Thomson but they say Monarch is liable. I can see we are going to be going round in circles with this but someone is telling porkies!

tollycatslave

Thanks for all the replies for your information it was a TOM1797 flight but Monarch plane and crew, thanks

greeneyedlad

i also booked with Thomson but flew with Monarch. Thomson are blaming Monarch & monarch are blaming Thomson. My flight number was TOM1654.
So does this mean that under preamble no 7: "In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis." It IS Thomson who is to blame as it was their flight number??
All help & advise on this is greatly appreciated thanks everybody.

greeneyedlad

tollycatslave wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies for your information it was a TOM flight but Monarch plane and crew, thanks

Tollycatslave i am in exactly the same position as you.
The way i am reading it it would be Monarch to blame but as it is a TOM flight number then it IS Thomson to blame.

Still not sure though. Hope someone can clarify for us thanks everybody again.

tollycatslave

Hi Greeneyedlad, yes it would appear so, I'm sure they know who is to blame but want to run us around, it will just make us all the more determined.

greeneyedlad

tollycatslave wrote: »

Hi Greeneyedlad, yes it would appear so, I'm sure they know who is to blame but want to run us around, it will just make us all the more determined.

i am going to contact the CAA to clarify who is to blame once & for all then i am going to SUE THEM! lol