Monarch - 3
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW-SSH
libhomeradar - easy collect aircraft information - Details for the selected database entry
Per libhomeradar if you were on ZB248 then G-EOMA A332.
If this link shows blank then go to the homepage and tick the more than 30 day box, under call-sign use MON248 (not ZB) and select 500 or 1000 entries per page and hit search and you should get the result you want.
If you were on a charter flight just add the flight number MONxxxx in the call-sign box as per above.
However as this one shows 9/4/12 I assume this was your flight.
BHX
It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer but only 4 x A321's showing most days in June.
Per libhomeradar if you were on ZB248 then G-EOMA A332.
If this link shows blank then go to the homepage and tick the more than 30 day box, under call-sign use MON248 (not ZB) and select 500 or 1000 entries per page and hit search and you should get the result you want.
If you were on a charter flight just add the flight number MONxxxx in the call-sign box as per above.
However as this one shows 9/4/12 I assume this was your flight.
BHX
It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer but only 4 x A321's showing most days in June.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 1st May 2013 at 11:53.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has nothing to do with a reason for delays. Mind you if that's the sort of thinking that people put into these 261 claims, then most airlines will be able to ignore this ridiculous bit of legislation!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for this - it was very interesting and useful link.
I was one of the unfortunate people stuck in Egypt for 24 hours last year when ZB248's side windscreen apparently cracked prior to take off from Gatwick. I'm simply keen to learn as much about the plane, the nature of the problem, the frequency of this sort of event, and the time it usually takes to resolve it.
I was struck by the generally poor punctuality record of Monarch, compared to other UK airlines. And I wondered whether that was to do, in a general sense, with the age of their fleet. I am so out of my area of expertise here, but assume that the older the plane the more maintenance is generally requires. The CAA's punctuality stats for Monarch do seem pretty poor - to my inexpert eye.
I can see some people feel strongly about Regulation 261/04. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the law is the law. Airlines often insist on their own terms and conditions being observed to the letter, so it seems to me - and I'm not meaning to be controversial - that it is unreasonable not to adhere to this law, however much one might consider it ill-advised. Some of the things I have seen airlines (including Monarch) write to potential claimants strike me as lacking integrity.
I was one of the unfortunate people stuck in Egypt for 24 hours last year when ZB248's side windscreen apparently cracked prior to take off from Gatwick. I'm simply keen to learn as much about the plane, the nature of the problem, the frequency of this sort of event, and the time it usually takes to resolve it.
I was struck by the generally poor punctuality record of Monarch, compared to other UK airlines. And I wondered whether that was to do, in a general sense, with the age of their fleet. I am so out of my area of expertise here, but assume that the older the plane the more maintenance is generally requires. The CAA's punctuality stats for Monarch do seem pretty poor - to my inexpert eye.
I can see some people feel strongly about Regulation 261/04. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the law is the law. Airlines often insist on their own terms and conditions being observed to the letter, so it seems to me - and I'm not meaning to be controversial - that it is unreasonable not to adhere to this law, however much one might consider it ill-advised. Some of the things I have seen airlines (including Monarch) write to potential claimants strike me as lacking integrity.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our OTP isn't the best, but it hasn't got much to do with the age of a fleet really. Brand new aircraft can be just as (if not more) problematic as older ones. They are all maintained to the same standards.
No airline wants delays, they are frustrating, cause us chaos and also cost a bomb long before you can get to legislation like EU261.
The problem with this particular bit of regulation is that it takes no account that sometimes when operating a very complicated machine such as an aeroplane with hundreds of people involved in every movement that sometimes stuff just happens that can't be forseen.
Often the problem has naff all to do with the airline, but with a myriad of other problems caused by others, but this legislation doesn't allow us recompense for that, we just get hit with the cost and the enormous interal cost of dealing with the claims in the first place.
We don't delay passengers because we want to, which is something you might want to remember before you send your form in.
For this season we have more aircraft than ever before and STBY machines to try and minimise the effects of delays, plus there is a load of work going on to look at where and why delays are happening. None of this is because we are worried about EU261, but because we don't want to delay passengers in the first place.
Sorry about your delay, but sometimes, they just happen and beating up airlines and taking even more cash out of them doesn't help fix the problem, it actually makes it worse as it diverts the money needed to fix problems.
However, if you think that a few quid will make a difference to you, then go ahead, but it's a bit ambulance chaserish if you ask me.
No airline wants delays, they are frustrating, cause us chaos and also cost a bomb long before you can get to legislation like EU261.
The problem with this particular bit of regulation is that it takes no account that sometimes when operating a very complicated machine such as an aeroplane with hundreds of people involved in every movement that sometimes stuff just happens that can't be forseen.
Often the problem has naff all to do with the airline, but with a myriad of other problems caused by others, but this legislation doesn't allow us recompense for that, we just get hit with the cost and the enormous interal cost of dealing with the claims in the first place.
We don't delay passengers because we want to, which is something you might want to remember before you send your form in.
For this season we have more aircraft than ever before and STBY machines to try and minimise the effects of delays, plus there is a load of work going on to look at where and why delays are happening. None of this is because we are worried about EU261, but because we don't want to delay passengers in the first place.
Sorry about your delay, but sometimes, they just happen and beating up airlines and taking even more cash out of them doesn't help fix the problem, it actually makes it worse as it diverts the money needed to fix problems.
However, if you think that a few quid will make a difference to you, then go ahead, but it's a bit ambulance chaserish if you ask me.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, if you think that a few quid will make a difference to you, then go ahead, but it's a bit ambulance chaserish if you ask me.
If you feel so strongly about the legislation, you should badger your MP and MEP continuously until action is taken to eliminate anomolies.
FWIW, I also feel that the legislation is very poor and not thought through thoroughly enough, but until it is amended, I cannot blame claimants for the shortcomings or lack of fairness of the current system.
It is law, however claiming as part of EU261 will only harm one stakeholder - the passenger through increased airfares. Airlines will start adding in extra administration charges to account for the additional costs.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer but only 4 x A321's showing most days in June.
It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer but only 4 x A321's showing most days in June.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
However, if you think that a few quid will make a difference to you, then go ahead, but it's a bit ambulance chaserish if you ask me.
I disagree. Most claimants are only after what they are entitled to by law as compensation for major disruption to their travel plans.
If you feel so strongly about the legislation, you should badger your MP and MEP continuously until action is taken to eliminate anomolies.
FWIW, I also feel that the legislation is very poor and not thought through thoroughly enough, but until it is amended, I cannot blame claimants for the shortcomings or lack of fairness of the current system.
However, if you think that a few quid will make a difference to you, then go ahead, but it's a bit ambulance chaserish if you ask me.
I disagree. Most claimants are only after what they are entitled to by law as compensation for major disruption to their travel plans.
If you feel so strongly about the legislation, you should badger your MP and MEP continuously until action is taken to eliminate anomolies.
FWIW, I also feel that the legislation is very poor and not thought through thoroughly enough, but until it is amended, I cannot blame claimants for the shortcomings or lack of fairness of the current system.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to take the discussion in a different direction, the what is your opinion on corporations legally avoiding tax whilst making massive profits? Obviously legal, but morally doubtful? Or perfectly fine as the law doesn't prohibit it?
a) Perfectly fine as the law does not prohibit it
AND
b) Obviously legal but morally doubful
Similarly my point is, if anyone finds it disturbing, distasteful or morally incomprehensible, then harass the law makers not those who appear to be taking advantage of what appears to be loosely framed legislation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
BasilFawlty
My post states "It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer" it was not a question but a statement of what is happening now. The aspect that is not accurate is that in fact Thursday and Friday show six A321's and two 320's.
I know what it says a few posts back and I am saying it is not right as yet.
There were only three A320's today and in fact only two this afternoon with eventually five A321's.
The intention once all aircraft are in place throughout the fleet might be to go to 4 x A321's at BHX but they are selling at five or six to start with.
They are not last minute substitutions either otherwise the seat-map would be showing the A320.
At present and as I have said before June is showing four A321's in the first week but I simply have not got the time to check the rest of May or the other weeks in June.
My post states "It seems BHX will start May with 5 x A321's and 3 x A320's this summer" it was not a question but a statement of what is happening now. The aspect that is not accurate is that in fact Thursday and Friday show six A321's and two 320's.
I know what it says a few posts back and I am saying it is not right as yet.
There were only three A320's today and in fact only two this afternoon with eventually five A321's.
The intention once all aircraft are in place throughout the fleet might be to go to 4 x A321's at BHX but they are selling at five or six to start with.
They are not last minute substitutions either otherwise the seat-map would be showing the A320.
At present and as I have said before June is showing four A321's in the first week but I simply have not got the time to check the rest of May or the other weeks in June.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deployment of assets
MANTHRUST
Are you on about where each aircraft is based?
The deployment of assets is a significant part of AAR in my opinion as it affects all three in some way and there seems to be some last minute changes and I feel it is worth discussing and trying clarify what is going on and why.
I have both an interest as a prospective (and recent) Monarch customer and of course as part of BHX stats which I like to monitor.
Monarch at present, again in my opinion is probably one of the most interesting and to a point changing airlines especially in respect of their presence in the Midlands and I am trying to understand what is going on with the allocation of the fleet.
Are you on about where each aircraft is based?
The deployment of assets is a significant part of AAR in my opinion as it affects all three in some way and there seems to be some last minute changes and I feel it is worth discussing and trying clarify what is going on and why.
I have both an interest as a prospective (and recent) Monarch customer and of course as part of BHX stats which I like to monitor.
Monarch at present, again in my opinion is probably one of the most interesting and to a point changing airlines especially in respect of their presence in the Midlands and I am trying to understand what is going on with the allocation of the fleet.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OP - I believe for peak a line of Bhx flying was due to be operated by a 3rd party carrier - this has now been bought in house on a 320 and a 321 is going to be a SB aircraft. By the peak Bhx will have 5 321's and 4 320's.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
CEJM & MANTFS
Thank you for the information, that is just about in line with the 9th aircraft starting full-time operations.
Perhaps slight disappointment that it is only four A321's but still an incredible increases on 2012 although the competition has somewhat changed over the last 12 months.
As an aside work seems to progressing well on the MAEL hangar at BHX with some work done on the apron in front as well.
Thank you for the information, that is just about in line with the 9th aircraft starting full-time operations.
Perhaps slight disappointment that it is only four A321's but still an incredible increases on 2012 although the competition has somewhat changed over the last 12 months.
As an aside work seems to progressing well on the MAEL hangar at BHX with some work done on the apron in front as well.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: W
Age: 42
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How ironic that Monarch is to be featured on BBC watchdog for delays to EU261 claims less than a week after I emailed their chief exec about the exact same issue. Been waiting since October and found them to be utterly hopeless.
Before the odd clown accuses me of ambulance chasing, let me make one thing clear, I initially did not claim under EU261 as I think the legislation is overly harsh on the airlines. I asked them to re-imburse all out of pocket expenses (including refreshments purchased on the outbound which should've been FOC as we were delayed by more than 3 hours) plus the cost to myself of having to book an additional days holiday as the inbound was nearly 7 hours late and I was in no fit state to go to work after zero sleep. The total requested was £360 ish. However after receiving a condescending reply and a derisory offer of "a free upgrade to an extra legroom seat on a future flight" I felt compelled to pursue under EU261. If the airline wasn't so stubborn in the first instance they would've saved themselves in the region of £1,000 (3 persons, 2 sectors delayed by more than 3 hours = €1,500), plus a whole lot of manpower hours.
Before the odd clown accuses me of ambulance chasing, let me make one thing clear, I initially did not claim under EU261 as I think the legislation is overly harsh on the airlines. I asked them to re-imburse all out of pocket expenses (including refreshments purchased on the outbound which should've been FOC as we were delayed by more than 3 hours) plus the cost to myself of having to book an additional days holiday as the inbound was nearly 7 hours late and I was in no fit state to go to work after zero sleep. The total requested was £360 ish. However after receiving a condescending reply and a derisory offer of "a free upgrade to an extra legroom seat on a future flight" I felt compelled to pursue under EU261. If the airline wasn't so stubborn in the first instance they would've saved themselves in the region of £1,000 (3 persons, 2 sectors delayed by more than 3 hours = €1,500), plus a whole lot of manpower hours.
Last edited by PhilW1981; 2nd May 2013 at 19:40.