Monarch -2
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr A Tis
I did just that a couple of years back. They are used by my family as a carrier of last resort now.
You have three hopes of this happening.....Bob, Viv and No!
HXDave
Per TAS Aviation Society's web site:
It appears all the Monarch flights used the "9" prefix numbers for call signs yesterday for arrivals and departures.
Here's the one you may be interested in from the log:
As a Vantage customer, I can only vote with my feet / wallet next time.
All I ask is that when the dust settles ( no pun) that Spotty M review how they failed to make the best use of their web site communication facility.
HXDave
Per TAS Aviation Society's web site:
It appears all the Monarch flights used the "9" prefix numbers for call signs yesterday for arrivals and departures.
Here's the one you may be interested in from the log:
16:01 MON9660 G-OZBT Airbus A321-231
Last edited by IB4138; 22nd Apr 2010 at 07:25.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I operated a Jet2 flight from AGP to MAN yesterday, many of the passengers that we carried were originally booked on other airlines including Monarch. The engineer that had to sign off the tech log after the volcanic ash check (Monarch engineer) told us that Monarch had several of their A300's in AGP to help repatriate passengers, but such was the lack of communication they were leaving with very few passengers onboard (the most was in the 60's
, and the flight to LGW apparently left with 18 on-board
). One of our passengers had even gone to the Monarch desk to try to get on a flight to MAN but was told it was full.....evidently not
.
Monarch are usually an excellent airline, but they appear to have made a beggar of this situation.
, and the flight to LGW apparently left with 18 on-board). One of our passengers had even gone to the Monarch desk to try to get on a flight to MAN but was told it was full.....evidently not.Monarch are usually an excellent airline, but they appear to have made a beggar of this situation.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, many of these problems are caused by the handling agent downroute who frequently misunderstand communictaions that are sent from head office. Do you honestly believe Monarch wish to fly an A300 back to blighty with 18 pax.
Its the handling agent that is checking in the pax. A quick check on the computer and they can see that the flight is currently checked in with 18 pax, not FULL.
I sure Monarch will give them a right rollocking once this has blown over.
Its the handling agent that is checking in the pax. A quick check on the computer and they can see that the flight is currently checked in with 18 pax, not FULL.
I sure Monarch will give them a right rollocking once this has blown over.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: stockport uk
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alter egos
757 flyer.
cherrylock=simon chowder.
close but no cigar, now if you had said kevlarcarl=simon chowder,well thats where my money would be.
both list interests as gliding,bikes/or classic motorcycles.
both have the same dislike for spotters, and they both use terms such as knapsack,wind yer neck in,im not an engineer,
both refer to 757s as old sheds.
both spell aren't as arnt,both spell dreadful as dreadfull.
compare their posts both come across very similary.
cherrylock=simon chowder.
close but no cigar, now if you had said kevlarcarl=simon chowder,well thats where my money would be.
both list interests as gliding,bikes/or classic motorcycles.
both have the same dislike for spotters, and they both use terms such as knapsack,wind yer neck in,im not an engineer,
both refer to 757s as old sheds.
both spell aren't as arnt,both spell dreadful as dreadfull.
compare their posts both come across very similary.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATIS
Not the handling agent down route excuse again. After three years of using this excuse and attempting to deflect the blaim to the agents at AGP for a variety of problems, it has warn more than thin.
It the agents are so poor and have aledgedly been "rollocked" before, then why are Monarch still using them?
Also, if instructions eminating from Monarch cannot be clearly understood by agents down route and the base airport at MAN for that matter as ZB9661 did operate, it was ZB661 that was cancelled, then perhaps they should look at how they are making these communications.
All Monarch have done is play "nine games" with people yesterday. Not everyone but the airline can be wrong.
A fish rots from the head. You cannot defend the indefensible.
Unfortunately, many of these problems are caused by the handling agent downroute who frequently misunderstand communictaions that are sent from head office. Do you honestly believe Monarch wish to fly an A300 back to blighty with 18 pax.
Its the handling agent that is checking in the pax. A quick check on the computer and they can see that the flight is currently checked in with 18 pax, not FULL.
I sure Monarch will give them a right rollocking once this has blown over.
Its the handling agent that is checking in the pax. A quick check on the computer and they can see that the flight is currently checked in with 18 pax, not FULL.
I sure Monarch will give them a right rollocking once this has blown over.
It the agents are so poor and have aledgedly been "rollocked" before, then why are Monarch still using them?
Also, if instructions eminating from Monarch cannot be clearly understood by agents down route and the base airport at MAN for that matter as ZB9661 did operate, it was ZB661 that was cancelled, then perhaps they should look at how they are making these communications.
All Monarch have done is play "nine games" with people yesterday. Not everyone but the airline can be wrong.
A fish rots from the head. You cannot defend the indefensible.
Last edited by IB4138; 22nd Apr 2010 at 12:39.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can imagine that the flight must have been still showing in the reservation system otherwise passengers could not have been booked on it.
On the issue of passengers are being told that the flights were full. Could this have being the case of a PNL (Passengers Names) being loaded into the flight hence showing the flights were booked full however some passengers may have allready made the long journey home or choosen another flight.
On many cases the website was the only way for passengers to gain information as i can imagine there was an extremely long waiting time to get through to the call centre for all airlines.
On the issue of passengers are being told that the flights were full. Could this have being the case of a PNL (Passengers Names) being loaded into the flight hence showing the flights were booked full however some passengers may have allready made the long journey home or choosen another flight.
On many cases the website was the only way for passengers to gain information as i can imagine there was an extremely long waiting time to get through to the call centre for all airlines.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Wed 21st, when UK airspace finally re-opened, Monarch seemed to have prioritised by repatriating those passengers that had been effected the longest and had the least chance of sourcing alternative routes home. There were three MON flights from SSH, Egypt that day. All were sent out empty in order to rescue customers that had been stuck there for 6 days, including me! Most people spoke very highly of MON, especially if they had been booked on a Cosmos package rather than flight/accommodation separately. A lot of people were left totally stranded, stressed and much out of pocket by some accommodation only companies. No rep, no help, nothing. The Cosmos rep did a good job in the circumstances in my opinion.
All the pax repatriated on the 3 MON flights that day were also greatly relieved to have been returned to the UK so quickly. ALL flights were full, demonstrating good communications to enable all available seats to be filled.
All the pax repatriated on the 3 MON flights that day were also greatly relieved to have been returned to the UK so quickly. ALL flights were full, demonstrating good communications to enable all available seats to be filled.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IB4138
Who exactly will have the up to date info 30 mins before departure, Monarch in Luton, or the handling agent at the airport.
Believe me head office has messed up many times before, I'm not debating that. In this instance if pax turn up at an airport wishing to buy a ticket on non-full flights, then I thought the handling agent will oblige.
On my last flight we had a few spare seats back to UK. I asked the despatcher whether there were any pax at the ticket desk trying to get on. "I don't know" was the response, and he left the aircraft. So I tried
Who exactly will have the up to date info 30 mins before departure, Monarch in Luton, or the handling agent at the airport.
Believe me head office has messed up many times before, I'm not debating that. In this instance if pax turn up at an airport wishing to buy a ticket on non-full flights, then I thought the handling agent will oblige.
On my last flight we had a few spare seats back to UK. I asked the despatcher whether there were any pax at the ticket desk trying to get on. "I don't know" was the response, and he left the aircraft. So I tried
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATIS
Just who thought up the "9" idea at Monarch and then failed to communicate it correctly?
Hence two flights in the system. eg: ZB9661 and ZB661, but only one aircraft.
Stop blaiming the agents. They still were under the impression that , in the case mentioned above, ZB661 was operating and loaded that flight's pax onto what was in Monarch's eyes ZB 9661, thus leaving the pax, who should have been on ZB9661 behind. Clearly MAN were equally as confused by putting on their website that ZB 9661 was cancelled. However that is the flight that actually flew. Somehow Aena got the information on which flight was actually flying correct on their website.
Why should the people holding reservations for ZB 9661 be queuing at the ticket desk to buy a ticket?....they already held them, or so they thought!
Just who thought up the "9" idea at Monarch and then failed to communicate it correctly?
Hence two flights in the system. eg: ZB9661 and ZB661, but only one aircraft.
Stop blaiming the agents. They still were under the impression that , in the case mentioned above, ZB661 was operating and loaded that flight's pax onto what was in Monarch's eyes ZB 9661, thus leaving the pax, who should have been on ZB9661 behind. Clearly MAN were equally as confused by putting on their website that ZB 9661 was cancelled. However that is the flight that actually flew. Somehow Aena got the information on which flight was actually flying correct on their website.
Why should the people holding reservations for ZB 9661 be queuing at the ticket desk to buy a ticket?....they already held them, or so they thought!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATIS / IB4138,
speaking to my friend today, there was about 150 who went to check in for the ZB9661 flight, all who were told that the flight did not exist. in my view, the ZB9661 was loaded into the system to allow monarch passengers who had cancelled flights to re book on the monarch flights that had space, but had been taken off sale to the general public....... (ie ZB661 24/04 had say 60 confirmed advance passenger, thus having approx 150 spare seats. allow these seats to be booked by passengers wishing to change their flights only, as opposed to new passengers.) however i believe somewhere down the line, someone was not told what was happening, and the flight was filled with standby passengers, rather than confirmed ticketed passenger.
anyone from monarch care to comment?
speaking to my friend today, there was about 150 who went to check in for the ZB9661 flight, all who were told that the flight did not exist. in my view, the ZB9661 was loaded into the system to allow monarch passengers who had cancelled flights to re book on the monarch flights that had space, but had been taken off sale to the general public....... (ie ZB661 24/04 had say 60 confirmed advance passenger, thus having approx 150 spare seats. allow these seats to be booked by passengers wishing to change their flights only, as opposed to new passengers.) however i believe somewhere down the line, someone was not told what was happening, and the flight was filled with standby passengers, rather than confirmed ticketed passenger.
anyone from monarch care to comment?
Last edited by HXdave; 23rd Apr 2010 at 20:19. Reason: correction of information.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think they have more problems at the moment.
Seems the ZB661 is jinksed:
Manchester Arrivals
Saturday, 24 April 2010
T1 ZB661 22:20 Malaga Estimated Mon 26 Apr 22:55
Seems the ZB661 is jinksed:
Manchester Arrivals
Saturday, 24 April 2010
T1 ZB661 22:20 Malaga Estimated Mon 26 Apr 22:55
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRO Americas: Monarch to maintain TUI 787s as Boeing drops SR Technics from GoldCare team
London Luton airport-based Monarch Aircraft Engineering looks to have stolen SR Technics' thunder with its selection by Boeing as the airframe maintenance supplier for 787 GoldCare programme launch customer TUI Travel.
Sources close to the programme said at last week's MRO Americas exhibition in Phoenix that Monarch won the deal, announced on 13 April, at TUI's request. Boeing had selected SR as non-exclusive European GoldCare airframe maintenance provider as long ago as July 2006 but, sources say, the two have been embroiled in a dispute over contractual terms.
Sources close to the programme said at last week's MRO Americas exhibition in Phoenix that Monarch won the deal, announced on 13 April, at TUI's request. Boeing had selected SR as non-exclusive European GoldCare airframe maintenance provider as long ago as July 2006 but, sources say, the two have been embroiled in a dispute over contractual terms.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good news for MAEL. I wonder whether the 787 will appear at Farnborough this year and pop into Luton on it's way, just as the 757 & 767 did all those years ago?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: london
Age: 59
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fantastic news not suprised boeing have gone with monarch they did a great job with the 757 right from day one if it were a choice of either SR or monarch looking after my 787 i know who id pick