Monarch Delays 28/5/11

[Big Harvey]

On the above date, our Monarch flight ZB786 from Gatwick to Paphos was delayed > 9 hours (until the early hours of the following morning), and we were kept waiting in the departure lounge for hours before we were given any information whatsoever, either about the length of the delay that we could expect, or the reason. Eventually we were told that the delay was due to "a technical problem with the aircraft," and that they had arranged for a sub-charter operator (Euro Atlantic) to take us instead.

Normally I take airlines' excuses at face value, but there was something fishy about this one. For a start, our flight was not the only Monarch one out of Gatwick to be heavily delayed that night. There was a flight to (I think) Alicante (might have been Malaga), and one to Larnaca which both suffered delays of a fairly similar magnitude. Did all 3 of these aircraft really go "technical" all at once?

The thing that really made me suspect that we weren't being told the whole truth was the fact that there were flights to Barcelona and Girona shown on the departure screen in the early hours of 29/5/11, carrying Barcelona fans home from the European Cup final. These flights were being operated by (yes, you've guessed it!) Monarch.

Looking at the Monarch website I can't see either of these two destinations listed as normal destinations.

Can anyone with inside knowledge confirm (obviously without dropping yourself in it) whether my suspicions are correct, and that 3 planeloads of passengers including me and my pregnant wife had the start of our holidays disrupted because Monarch greedily accepted more business than it had aircraft to provide for?

[PB wheres my pension]

Big Harvey
Put it this way, it wouldnt be the first time this has happened. :rolleyes:

[Hotel Tango]

Your suspicions may be correct. In the present climate I can understand an airline wanting to maximise revenue by taking on lucrative ad-hoc charters, but to have been treated as you were is poor customer relations and unacceptable.

[IB4138]

Big Harvey

Nothing changes and the re-brand will make no difference at all to this behaviour. I have personally suffered from late notice cancellations and consolidations over the past years.

That is one reason ( there are others) why they are now and have been for some time now, my carrier of last resort.

Now, if the old Crown Service returned, that would be a massive plus, but it just won't happen.

[tubby linton]

This is not true.Unfortunately Mon were having a bad day with aircraft servicability and the quickest option was to sub charter especially if the anticipated load would have exceeded the capacity of one of the 320 family

[renort]

there was plenty of subservice availability quicker than the euroatlantic, but Monarch can't use it, the reason? Ask the same person that overbooked the programme in the first place!

[Dawdler]

Monarch have done something like this before. Some years ago, we arrived at Faro Airport to catch our 16.00hr flight to UK. The Destination board said "delayed" at around 17.00hr we learnt (via travel company reps, we were flying independantly) that the delay would be "substantial" and at 20.00hr they were planning to bus us (285 people) to a hotel in town where we would be given a meal. I asked which hotel and told them I and my party would make our own way there and rendezvous there at the appointed time.

The result was that we had a few more hours sightseeing in Faro followed by an excellent (in the circumstances) meal. The Hotel were fantastic, the room which we occupied had just an hour before hosted a wedding party. We were given free run of all the hotel facilities and in the circumstances (aircraft unservicability) we felt pretty well treated. We were all shipped back to the aircport at 23.00hr and waited unto 04.30hr the following morning to board.

Interestingly we found out on the way back that it wasn't our aircraft that broke down at all. An aircraft broke down at Malaga. This one was due subsequently on return to Gatwick to make a flight to Goa on the Indian sub-continent. "Our" aircraft was taken off the service to Faro at the last minute and sent on the Goa flight. We had to wait for the aircraft at Malaga to be fixed (which included flying out parts from the UK) as did the 300 odd people waiting to fly out to Faro. To say that we were miffed at that action is putting it mildy. The crew (who had to be called in as the other crew were out of hours) were shocked at the company's actions.

Needless to say a group of us representing the majority of the passengers on our flight took up the matter with Monarch when we got back home. They just stonewalled us completely. It was many years before I flew Monarch again, (I reckon they lost about twelve flights from me alone). I know others adopted the same action. So they are not above playing chinese chequers with planes and passengers when it suits them.

Ironically the aircraft that took us out to Faro a week before was a wetlease Tri-star from Icelandic Airways, "Due to aircraft unavailiability". If they could do it one week why couldn't they do it again?

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

I guess the subject of Monarch's re-brand as a mostly scheduled carrier, is in order to offer an alternative to the irritating selling habits of Ryanair and others. I happened to listen to the new senior exec's brief along these lines on UK Radio 4 yesterday.

It's one thing to be 'up-front' for fast and transparent on-line reservations costing, but they will need to match the up-market airlines for passenger handling as well. Today's huge number of regular travelers are better informed than the operators and media take them for. For the Media, an aeroplane has to be a 'Holiday Jet', or 'Jumbo'. More people move around by air for a hundred different reasons that don't involve simple categorisation any more.....and haven't done for a long time. If Monarch wants to improve on the LoCo experience, they would do well to simplify the customer's 'carry-on baggage' planning. The avoidance of checking in hold baggage is a big deal for many commuters and regulars these days, and when they take the trouble to match the IATA regs on dimensions and overhead locker weight limit for type, they need to know that it won't be snatched off them at the gate by an ill-informed traffic agent.

I always feel that fessing up to delays down to 'late arrival of inbound', is not enough. Stressed passengers deserve more detail in order to show that the traffic staff actually care, and have bothered to find out why. As for delays due to a 'technical problem'.....that's another lazy over-simplifation, guaranteed to irritate. We all know that airliners, unlike ships and trains, are flimsy bits of cleverly stressed tinwork, comprising a couple or four million listed replaceable parts, so think about it, and try to come up with something close to a rational explanation. It's quite simple to do this, and still put people's mind at rest. It just takes a bit of effort for a change. It's also becoming more important do do this in more than English. That means having a few language speakers on shift. For Monarch, or any other aspiring operator reckoning to take on the low cost competition, and based on a fair amount of personal experience, I reckon this would help. The idiom of the 1950s is over........passengers have come on a bit. Airports are places where for many, pleasures are hard to come by. Once you get to sit down on the right seat on the right aircraft, then that's half the battle over.....

[Ancient Observer]

I am always sorry to hear about it when airlines give such p*** poor service. I've been on the receiving end of that sort of service too often.

However, I've flown a couple of times with Monarch recently, and I have to say that the service standards, reliability, charm of the crew and all that stuff has been much better than other airlines. I was looking forward to them moving to scheduled status.

Shame they mucked it up for you

[Big Harvey]

Thanks for all the replies.

We didn't let it spoil our holiday, and they got us home on time at least.

Having said that, my seat on our flight home was the most uncomfortable I've encountered on a plane for years. I can understand them putting seats close together with little leg-room, and making them narrow, all so they can pack more seats on the plane and offer cheaper fares. What I don't understand is what they would gain by making the seat back so short that it doesn't even come up to my shoulder! I may be taller than average, but I'm not freakishly so, and I noticed others in the same predicament. If the flight was only half an hour or something, it wouldn't be an issue, but on a flight departing at 2.20 in the morning and lasting the best part of 4 hours, I needed somewhere to rest my head. I can only assume that they expect tall people to recline their seats and rest their heads in the laps of the people behind them!

I'm well used to the shortcomings and disadvantages of flying with low cost and no-frills airlines, and take most of these things in my stride, but I think it'll be a while before I'll be open to being persuaded to fly with Monarch again.

[Evanelpus]

I've flown Monarch many times and, in the main, they have been fantastic.

However, the two times we flew with them from Gatwick, both flights were to Paphos, the average delay was 5 hours. It was also strange that both times the aircraft concerned was the A300-600, coincidence?