[TiredOldHack]

eejp1007 – yes, the pilot of the aircraft I eventually flew in mentioned the cracked windscreen. This sort of thing happens.

He also mentioned the luggage shambles, in a tone of voice which strongly suggested: “I think it was a complete waste of time as well.”

[TravelWise]

Well SimonS1, I don’t disagree that price is a good factor, but as Eastbourneguy mentioned: they don’t have access to that information. However, my proposal was not so far away, because if you check in early with Monarch, it normally means you will have paid more, because their check in options are only open earlier if you book one of the higher fare tickets: “Essentials pack” or “Extras pack”.
Therefore, I believe it is a fairer way as those who pay more and choose seating would normally check in earlier. I think it is fairer than just seeing who turns up at the gate or transfer desk first. The only exception should be if you are a frequent traveller with Monarch. In this months BT we can read about how loyalty schemes are having less value, so at least airlines should not bump their most loyal members. As you said, there is no real win and someone will always think its unfair.

[SimonS1]

But playing devils advocate, you might have a family of 4 who booked a holiday 9 months ago of which the Monarch flight was one component. They check in at the airport (as many families still do) so presumably that means they would be bumped.

Meanwhile a traveller who picked up a flight through a consolidator a couple of weeks ago checks in a couple of days before and is fine.

There are always risks involved in flying with airlines like Monarch. The fleet gets worked so hard that the most minor mishap can prove painful. I’ve only used them once or twice, a delay of 4 hours on one occasion and the whole gamut of excuses.

[TiredOldHack]

Well, email sent. We shall see what transpires.

STARTS

Dear Mr Keithley,

I suspect you may have seen this topic voiced on the Business Traveller forums, but anyway…..

On Saturday 1 February, I was booked on Monarch flight 6486 from LGW to GNB. I checked in on time, collected my boarding pass, and went to the A1 lounge, for which I have a card.

I am aware that flight announcements are not made in lounges, and so always keep a watchful eye on the departure boards. As I am sure you know, this flight developed a technical fault, and the delay dragged on.

When the light was finally called to gate, I went there, took my place in the queue, and when I handed over my boarding pass, was told I could not board. The gate staff brandished a Transit Pass, and asked if I had one of those. Puzzled, I explained I was not in transit, but was simply flying out. They waved a £5 meal voucher and asked if I had one of those instead. No.

They then explained that passengers had been called to receive the meal vouchers to which they are entitled in the event of delays. I explained (a) that I was in the lounge and no such announcement was made there and (b) that even if one had been, I would not have taken it up, because…. I was in the lounge with free food and drink anyway.

I was then refused boarding, as were two other passengers (at least) who found themselves in the same predicament.

I understand that the original aircraft was replaced by a smaller aircraft, and there was not enough space for all, and the unfortunates who did not collect their meal vouchers were bumped onto a later flight.

It did not end there. As you must also be aware, all the baggage from the original flight was dumped out on the tarmac, in heavy rain, and all passengers had to go and identify their items. As we were released from the terminal in groups of ten people, this took a very long time. I understand this is because your agents, Swissport, did not want to do the job of sorting through the baggage bins themselves.

I finally passed through the boarding gate for the other flight at 4.02pm by the gate clock, and it took off at about 4.30pm.

Under the EU’s Denied Boarding Regulations ( Regulation 261/2004), I am entitled to EUR250.00 for what I experienced (delay of more than three hours for flights under 1,500km in length). We are both aware that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that limit airlines’ liability in this respect does not extend to technical faults.

I would be grateful if you would please confirm this, and make the necessary arrangements.

Yours faithfully,

ENDS

[SimonS1]

Very good email. Polite but to the point. Good luck.

[TiredOldHack]

Reply says out that being put onto the second of two aircraft doesn’t constitute being bumped off the flight. It *did* have a different flight number, but I suppose it would have to have. I’d accept that.

Says lawyers are looking at whether a cracked windscreen constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstance’. I bet they are.

No mention of the luggage debacle.

Compensation form attached.

We shall see.

[TiredOldHack]

And here is the latest development.

A fob-off letter from some lady at Monarch. Interestingly, what was described here, and at the time, and later by Monarch’s Mr Keithley, as a cracked windscreen, was (according to her) a windscreen that actually shattered in flight!

I have asked how this escalation occurred, and how/why what must have been a very serious emergency was successfully kept out of the media.

The lady who presented this extraordinary news also told me that the contents of her letter and my claim were confidential. I told her, in polite journalese, to put that where the sun doesn’t shine.

Further details as and when.

[Tallinnman]

I used to laugh at $100m judgements in the US courts for small / trivial claims but the airlines approach to EU 261 makes me want a punitive damages law here in the UK for corporations that continually and plan for breaking the laws they don’t like.
If the airline doesn’t like the law it can go and fly in other parts of the world where EU 261 doesn’t apply. They are making asses of the law and the politicians in Europe (I know also asses) who wrote it.
A cracked windscreen is unfortunate but the accompanying delay if it occurs is down to the airline maintenance, spare part inventory and staff/aircraft rostering policy.
To be fair to Monarch they had spares albeit of smaller gauge and it appears they did a reasonable job in the circumstances but the law states that compensation is due so pay up.

[TiredOldHack]

And you don’t think that telling an outright lie is reprehensible?

I must say, telling a lie is a silly thing to do. Telling it to a journalist is even sillier. Telling to a journalist who is actually making a claim against your company is silly to the power of three. And then telling him it’s confidential is actually funny.

I signed off my reply with my National Union of Journalists number under my name.

[SimonS1]

Must say TOH it’s a bit of a feeble one.

Must have been a highly dangerous incident if the windscreen shattered in flight. Last time I recall that was that BA flight when the pilot was half sucked out the window.

I assume the AAIB have been involved and can corroborate Monarch’s case when you see them in court.

[TiredOldHack]

Yes, I referred to that incident in my reply, and said I’d be interested to read the official reports.

[1nfrequent]

It is laughable that anyone should attempt to claim that the contents of a letter in on-going correspondence are confidential. Hate it when people with no legal knowledge try to bully people. Hope you stick to your guns, OH.

1F

[TiredOldHack]

OK, claim refused again.

“Aircraft can be safely operated with cracked or shattered windows, dependent on the severity of the defect. In this particular case the window did crack and shatter in flight but the extent was not so severe that it caused an in-flight emergency.”

Technical fails can constitute extraordinary circumstances, yadda yadda, piss off…

OK, is there any way of accessing maintenance reports via the Freedom Of Information Act or the CAA? I’ve got the bit between my teeth.

I also reminded them that the delay was exacerbated by sending all the passengers out, ten at a time, to retrieve their luggage from the tarmac, in the rain. Interestingly, there has been no reference by Monarch to this in any of their correspondence (although I have mentioned it), and I wonder if this would be a profitable line of enquiry. Anyway, I’ve certainly brought the subject up again.

[nmh1204]

I think EU 261 would cover you, but not entirely sure

“Before denying passengers boarding involuntarily, the airline is required to first seek volunteers to give up their reservation in return for whatever benefit is negotiated between the airline and the volunteers. Irrespective of such negotiation, such volunteers are also entitled to reimbursement or rerouting”

From what I understand, they didn’t contact you to deny you boarding, except when you’d got to the gate, therefore they would be breaking the regulations.

[FirstClassWannabe]

Hi TiredOldHack – you may find this of interest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2567703/Man-won-3-200-flight-delay-compensation-Monatch-court-case.html

[Author]

Posts