Corfu to Manchester 29/10/05
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corfu to Manchester 29/10/05
Can anyone shed any light on why our flight (MON3165) was delayed 17.5 hours? We have had various explanations, even one from the airline. They had the date and flight timings wrong. Why were we flown back by Excel Airways carrying the same flight number MON 3165. My insurance company would like to know, so would I.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: SOUTH EAST
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi There,
Im afraid i cant shed any light as to why that flight was delayed as i dont work for either company, just wondered if you can clarify .... they had the date and flight timings wrong .... ????
For a delay of that length, i would have thought that Monarch or your Tour Operator would have issued a letter explaining the reasons behind the delay.
If Monarch had suffered with a few aircraft being tech that day, then by them sub chartering an Excel Aircraft explains why you returned with them, and also probably reduced the delay you experienced with them.
Most charter airlines will look to other carriers to help them out when things go wrong, if there is something available, majority of airlines will snap it up. The Excel aircraft that Monarch chartered would have stayed with the MON flight number. The charter was probably done under an ACMI agreement (Aircraft,Crew,Maint,Insurance) and thats all excel would have provided. Everything else (to the passenger) would remain as Monarch.
Insurance companies deal with these kind of claims everyday so why they are questioning it, im not sure. Monarch should be able to provide a statement stating the length of delay in order for you to claim.
Many Thx
TJ747
Im afraid i cant shed any light as to why that flight was delayed as i dont work for either company, just wondered if you can clarify .... they had the date and flight timings wrong .... ????
For a delay of that length, i would have thought that Monarch or your Tour Operator would have issued a letter explaining the reasons behind the delay.
If Monarch had suffered with a few aircraft being tech that day, then by them sub chartering an Excel Aircraft explains why you returned with them, and also probably reduced the delay you experienced with them.
Most charter airlines will look to other carriers to help them out when things go wrong, if there is something available, majority of airlines will snap it up. The Excel aircraft that Monarch chartered would have stayed with the MON flight number. The charter was probably done under an ACMI agreement (Aircraft,Crew,Maint,Insurance) and thats all excel would have provided. Everything else (to the passenger) would remain as Monarch.
Insurance companies deal with these kind of claims everyday so why they are questioning it, im not sure. Monarch should be able to provide a statement stating the length of delay in order for you to claim.
Many Thx
TJ747
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks TJ747 for your reply. Our replacement aircraft flight timings are as follows:
MON 3165 - Corfu to Manchester - 29 October 2005.
Actual departure time was 2200hrs (local time)
Scheduled departure time was 0445hrs (local time)
Delay 17 hours plus.
Monarch Airlines version of events in their letter to me.
The information you will need for insurance purposes is as follows:
• MON 3165 - Corfu to Manchester - 30 October 2005
• Scheduled time of departure was 0145 hours GMT on the 30 October.
• Actual time of departure was 1854 hours GMT on the 30 October.
• TOTAL DELAY OF 17 HOURS and 09 MINUTES ON THE DEPARTURE TIME.
The resultant events caused by this delay:
MON3165 inward 0445/0610hrs. This flight was diverted to Thessalonica allegedly due to adverse weather conditions, ie.fog at Corfu, we didn’t see any. This flight never arrived at Corfu but was flown back to Manchester from Thessalonica empty. We were told the crew had run out of flying hours, yet they can still fly the plane. All the taxis met this flight MON3165 at Manchester as no one had told them, not even teletext; there were no passengers on board, resulting in our taxi making a wasted journey from Bradford to Manchester Airport, adding extra expense. This aircraft carried the flight number MON3165. We were flown back eventually from Corfu by Excel Airways (which obviously indicated our original flight had been cancelled) this aircraft also carried the same flight number MON3165 why? This flight took off from Corfu at 2200hrs local time (2000hrs GMT) Saturday 29/10/2005 landing at Manchester at 2310hrs (GMT) Saturday 29/10/2005.
We had now been waiting in the airport departure lounge at Corfu a total of 7 hours, before a room and two meals were provided at a hotel in Dassia, 45 minutes from the airport. We arrived at the hotel 1200hrs local time and left the hotel in Dassia at 1900hrs local time. Not much time for a rest and the food offered was disgusting. We are both in our 70's and both disabled, my partner was in a broken wheelchair from our first arrival at Corfu airport in the departure lounge, until our removal to the hotel in Dassia, with no contact between ourselves and holiday representatives, causing us unnecessary discomfort and distress and we feel Monarch Airlines should make a gesture of compensation under the new EU directive.
MON 3165 - Corfu to Manchester - 29 October 2005.
Actual departure time was 2200hrs (local time)
Scheduled departure time was 0445hrs (local time)
Delay 17 hours plus.
Monarch Airlines version of events in their letter to me.
The information you will need for insurance purposes is as follows:
• MON 3165 - Corfu to Manchester - 30 October 2005
• Scheduled time of departure was 0145 hours GMT on the 30 October.
• Actual time of departure was 1854 hours GMT on the 30 October.
• TOTAL DELAY OF 17 HOURS and 09 MINUTES ON THE DEPARTURE TIME.
The resultant events caused by this delay:
MON3165 inward 0445/0610hrs. This flight was diverted to Thessalonica allegedly due to adverse weather conditions, ie.fog at Corfu, we didn’t see any. This flight never arrived at Corfu but was flown back to Manchester from Thessalonica empty. We were told the crew had run out of flying hours, yet they can still fly the plane. All the taxis met this flight MON3165 at Manchester as no one had told them, not even teletext; there were no passengers on board, resulting in our taxi making a wasted journey from Bradford to Manchester Airport, adding extra expense. This aircraft carried the flight number MON3165. We were flown back eventually from Corfu by Excel Airways (which obviously indicated our original flight had been cancelled) this aircraft also carried the same flight number MON3165 why? This flight took off from Corfu at 2200hrs local time (2000hrs GMT) Saturday 29/10/2005 landing at Manchester at 2310hrs (GMT) Saturday 29/10/2005.
We had now been waiting in the airport departure lounge at Corfu a total of 7 hours, before a room and two meals were provided at a hotel in Dassia, 45 minutes from the airport. We arrived at the hotel 1200hrs local time and left the hotel in Dassia at 1900hrs local time. Not much time for a rest and the food offered was disgusting. We are both in our 70's and both disabled, my partner was in a broken wheelchair from our first arrival at Corfu airport in the departure lounge, until our removal to the hotel in Dassia, with no contact between ourselves and holiday representatives, causing us unnecessary discomfort and distress and we feel Monarch Airlines should make a gesture of compensation under the new EU directive.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brasenell
I don't work for the airline concerned but perhaps I could clarify one or two points for you.
The notion that the crew did not have enough hours is plausible. Basically, if they had operated into Corfu and then back to MAN this would have added an additional sector to their duty time thus reducing the max permitted flying duty period. Also, the flight to, and turnround in CFU would have extended the total duty time, probably beyond the legally permitted maximum. They may well have had sufficient hours left to get the aircraft back to the UK in order to have it in position for further planned flights but no more.
This left MON with a flight full of pax in CFU to return to the UK. The end of the summer season is notoriously busy for the charter carriers with certain destinations being dropped for the winter, i.e. CFU. Sub-charter availablity is not always there and spare capacity on your own fleet for a flight such as CFU isn't easy to come by. It sounds like the Excel aircraft & crew was the first available.
None of this makes your experience any better but I hope it will shed some light on the events that, IMHO, were not very clearly explained to you. And it doesn't sound like the delay treatment and assistance was of the best quality. Please remember though that these arrangements would have been made and managed by the handling agent in CFU, not Monarch themselves. Write to the airline and explain, they will probably be as unhappy about your treatment as you are.
I don't work for the airline concerned but perhaps I could clarify one or two points for you.
The notion that the crew did not have enough hours is plausible. Basically, if they had operated into Corfu and then back to MAN this would have added an additional sector to their duty time thus reducing the max permitted flying duty period. Also, the flight to, and turnround in CFU would have extended the total duty time, probably beyond the legally permitted maximum. They may well have had sufficient hours left to get the aircraft back to the UK in order to have it in position for further planned flights but no more.
This left MON with a flight full of pax in CFU to return to the UK. The end of the summer season is notoriously busy for the charter carriers with certain destinations being dropped for the winter, i.e. CFU. Sub-charter availablity is not always there and spare capacity on your own fleet for a flight such as CFU isn't easy to come by. It sounds like the Excel aircraft & crew was the first available.
None of this makes your experience any better but I hope it will shed some light on the events that, IMHO, were not very clearly explained to you. And it doesn't sound like the delay treatment and assistance was of the best quality. Please remember though that these arrangements would have been made and managed by the handling agent in CFU, not Monarch themselves. Write to the airline and explain, they will probably be as unhappy about your treatment as you are.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Just looking at the dates and times, I notice that the night of 29/30 October 2005 was daylight saving time change night in the EU. That might have a bearing on explaining what's happened. On Saturday 29 October, Greece was still on daylight saving time ie GMT+3. So 0445L on 29 October (your scheduled time of departure) was indeed 0145Z, and 2200L was 1900Z. These match quite closely with the GMT times quoted by MON.
You also have to remember that MON is likely to have used the pushback time, or start of taxiing, as the departure time of the flight - not takeoff time - as this is what departure officially is. So that might also explain why the 1854Z quoted by them is a few minutes earlier than your 2200L/1900Z.
And you will have landed at Manchester at 2310L = 2210Z.
I wonder, therefore, whether the letter you got simply has the wrong date, saying 30 October when they meant 29 October?
You also have to remember that MON is likely to have used the pushback time, or start of taxiing, as the departure time of the flight - not takeoff time - as this is what departure officially is. So that might also explain why the 1854Z quoted by them is a few minutes earlier than your 2200L/1900Z.
And you will have landed at Manchester at 2310L = 2210Z.
I wonder, therefore, whether the letter you got simply has the wrong date, saying 30 October when they meant 29 October?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks to both Globaliser and Big Tudor for your interest and explanations to my query. I will certainly now write to the airline concerned.
Saturday, 29 October 2005, 22:00:00 EEST
UTC/GMT Offset Standard time zone: UTC/GMT +2 hours
Daylight saving time: +1 hour
Current time zone offset: UTC/GMT +3 hours
I am assuming GMT is the accepted international standard.
Reference the above: Monarch has the date wrong in their letter. Clocks were altered on the 30 October 2005 - DST ended on Sunday, 30 October 2005, 04:00 local daylight time, in Greece.
DST ended on Sunday, October 30, 2005 at 2:00 AM, in the UK.
Thanks again.
Saturday, 29 October 2005, 22:00:00 EEST
UTC/GMT Offset Standard time zone: UTC/GMT +2 hours
Daylight saving time: +1 hour
Current time zone offset: UTC/GMT +3 hours
I am assuming GMT is the accepted international standard.
Reference the above: Monarch has the date wrong in their letter. Clocks were altered on the 30 October 2005 - DST ended on Sunday, 30 October 2005, 04:00 local daylight time, in Greece.
DST ended on Sunday, October 30, 2005 at 2:00 AM, in the UK.
Thanks again.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brasenell - I know that around the end of October Monarch were a little short of hulls due to an unusual spell of tech problems, resulting in several sub-charters for MON flights, one of which I operated on 31/10. I'm pretty sure some of the problems made their way onto Pprune? Like BT I cannot comment on the pax handling in CFU, nor MAN, which are issues for you, Monarch and their handling agents there. I would guess that the flight from TSL-MAN may well have operated as the 3165'P' ('positioning') which might not have shown on the public arrivals pages at MAN? This would, I think, leave the CFU flight as the correct 3165.
I'm pretty sure that looking at the times given, the extra sector into CFU at that time of the morning would have exceeded legally allowable duty hours, leaving both the a/c and crew unusable in CFU for 11 hours or so. As BT says, although it was little comfort to you and the rest of the pax, it seems Monarch did the best they could bearing in mind the problems of spare (seasonal) capacity as BT says.
My memories of CFU are somewhat old, but remember that 'fog' does not have to be over the airfield to stop approaches, and I remember poor visibility in the bay on the 35 approach was always a potential problem.
I'm pretty sure that looking at the times given, the extra sector into CFU at that time of the morning would have exceeded legally allowable duty hours, leaving both the a/c and crew unusable in CFU for 11 hours or so. As BT says, although it was little comfort to you and the rest of the pax, it seems Monarch did the best they could bearing in mind the problems of spare (seasonal) capacity as BT says.
My memories of CFU are somewhat old, but remember that 'fog' does not have to be over the airfield to stop approaches, and I remember poor visibility in the bay on the 35 approach was always a potential problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks BOAC for your comments and explanations. If only these were supplied to passengers at the time I am sure there would be less frustration and anxiety suffered by them, a delay of 17plus hours is an extremely long time waiting for something to happen, especially if you are disabled. I appreciate that airlines sometimes suffer 'knock on' effects and in the case of charter aircraft it isn’t possible to transfer passengers to another flight as quickly as they would like. It doesn’t always happen with scheduled flights either.
Having flown now quite a few hours on business and for pleasure over the passed 50 plus years I can only applaud the aircrews for their efficiency and attitude towards their passengers safety, sometimes forgotten by many passengers.
As to handling agents, well there’s another story.
Thanking you once again
Having flown now quite a few hours on business and for pleasure over the passed 50 plus years I can only applaud the aircrews for their efficiency and attitude towards their passengers safety, sometimes forgotten by many passengers.
As to handling agents, well there’s another story.
Thanking you once again
