Not a real guide to load factor. Recently travelled on an American carrier which showed in excess of 50 seats available for reserving when I left for the airport only to find that, at the gate, they were asking for volunteers to take a later flight due to overbooking!

I would echo busdrivers comments. Not everyone uses online check-in / seat selection and some seats of the aircraft are reserved for other passengers. Although you may use it as an indicator of how busy a flight may be, it's not reliable.

Darren

Hi guys I have booked with Monarch 10/ 04/ 2010 on flight ZB524 any help on aircraft type ? all I can find is 747/200 but the seating looks different, Row 7 a/b

Top-Dog-Port-Vale,

It won't be a 747-200, they don't operate the type! MAN-LEI-MAN (ZB524/5) is operated by an Airbus A320-200. You'll find further aircraft information on our What Aircraft? guide (see below).

Darren

Can anyone confirm what Monarch's childs car seat policy is.

I'm with my son & wife travelling to Goa on MON4372. I was under the impression that buggies & car seats were carried free of charge, I'm sure when we flew to Portugal with monarch we took both free of charge but that was a scheduled flight & I think this flight is charter.

I called Monarch to check and spoke to a not very helpful customer service person. They said the buggy was fine but the car seat would come off our baggage allowance and might even be chargeable as an extra bag.

Now we've been caught out by Monarch before for more than one bag even though we were under our weight alowance and the extra at the airport wasn't cheap. I really want to be sure of the position before I get to the airport.

Fritz,

You can take a buggy or a car seat for the child free of charge, not both. You'll either have to include the car seat as part of your luggage allowance, or pay for extra allowance for it, as per what you were told when you called Monarch.

Darren

We booked flights Man - Corfu on a Monarch charter via Charterflights with Goldtrail the ATOL holder.
The flights were prefixed MON (Monarch) I called recently to find they are now VIK (Viking). Of course the times we booked were great departing at 8.30am on departure day and at 15.30 from Corfu, but now leave a 5.40am and at 11.55am. Not too bad a change, but miss the morning on the final day. But I get the feeling the original flights MON7549 and MON7550 never actually existed - I read before something on here about these sort of published fares with good flight departure times being 'ghost' flights that then change later. I am annoyed and they are also selling them the VIK flights for £80 cheaper off the total price that I paid.

I expect "we can do what we like ... change the time (if under 12 hours) and airline" will be all I hear if I ring them.

Rant over.

Won't be using either of these two companies again. No notice from them, only figured it out myself and had it confirmed when called goldtrail today.

Aliceadventures,

What dates are you travelling? I'll check the Monarch flight schedule for you (there are several flights per week). I suspect the problem is with the booking agent rather than Monarch and they've simply moved you on to a different flight. Goldtrail are known for changing times / airlines post-booking with member reporting it regularly.

Darren

Thanks
9 Aug - 16 Aug : 7 nights. I can see the Monarch flights on the same date - I have checked them. they are till going the same days. I just think these first flights never existed.

One Monarch flight leaves MAN at 11:00/17:45 and then CFU 16:15/19:15 back in MAN - would be so much better

Sorry the dates are 02 to 09 Aug. These are for my parents and they didn't want an early check-in (long drive). I haven't told them yet. Also they are old school and like Monarch. Will flip when I say its Viking.

Spoken to Goldtrail who say they haven't sent out details to the agents yet about the change of airline/times. So Goldtrail are the ones who've changed it. BUT Goldtrail won't discuss it with me and has told me to speak to the agent Charterflights (who are shut now) as I booked it last Ocotober via them. I understand flights may alter, but as there is a Monarch flight and the time times differences are less than the Viking times, I am going to ask why can't they change it to that one.

Does anyone know why the Monarch 2490 flight due to fly to Goa yesterday was delayed and didn't depart until this morning?
Fizz

fizzy2,

I believe there was a technical problem with the aircraft (G-SMAN) following it's return from Calgary on Saturday morning.

Darren

Hi

We are looking at going to Kenya with Monarch in September flying from Gatwick to Mombassa. Can you tell me what meal plans we will be getting, i.e breakfast or evening meal. We will upgrade to premium cabin so I think we get a hot meal and cold meal/snack.

O/B Monarch 3692
20/9/10 - 22.55
21/9/10 - 10.00

I/B Monarch 3693
5/10/10 - 12.00
5/10/10 - 19.15

Also I know it will be a 2-4-2 formation, do Monarch allow us to choose our seat numbers or is this a first come first served thing at check in?

Thanks in advance.

Hann

wantaholiday,

You'll get an eveing meal followed by a cold snack on your outbound flight, and a lunch followed by cold snack on your inbound flight. You can't choose seat numbers with Monarch, they are allocated at check-in.

Darren

How do I get my comments to the Directors of Monarch?

A Monarch Airlines Nightmare

Flight ZB 626 Manchester - Lanzarote - 2/02/2010

Half an hour from arrival I wondered why I had for years preferred routes via Madrid to return home to the Canaries. This was a perfect flight, extra legroom seat, meal OK and professional staff - then, sadly it was problem time.
The pilot calmly announced that poor visibility would mean a trip around the island, getting us there 15 minutes late at 12.15 pm. No big deal, but I noticed sometime after a quarter past twelve that we had swerved away and heading for the adjoining island of Fuertaventura. A still calm voce from the cabin was heard again but with slightly more disturbing facts. The flaps had failed to open meaning, whilst the aircraft was ‘capable of landing without them - we needed a longer runway' and that was to be found on the neighbouring island 15 minutes away. Then there was a ‘But.' And the blood pressure went up. We were going to have a landing ‘faster than normal and the fire engines would be there ‘as a precaution.' When he announced that we were to pay attention to instructions from the crew - it rang to me of something different, not experienced in 35 years of regular flying - an emergency landing. The cabin staff girls put on smiles a little exaggerated - I suspect that is practised in their training. The one who joined me in her jump seat in the emergency exit couldn't smile for long. An eerie silence throughout the plane contrasted a previous holiday type buzz. Eyes were closed everywhere and hands squeezed together.
We hit the tarmac fast. How fast until later I did no realise. Brakes screamed and the aircraft went, at speed, what seemed an awful long way on the ground - overstepping what was clearly normally used tarmac - and into a section littered with debris. Debris which may have been small pebbles or house bricks, I don't know - but the noise was frightening - with the sound of a machine gun attacking the underside of the plane. Brakes were rammed on and loud - but everyone wished and hoped they were good ones. We eventually stopped with fire engines on both sides chasing us. Thankfully they didn't need their foam or water.
An apology from the pilot amongst a ripple of applause from all, told us we had landed at 170 knots - but the inconvenience suffered was better that ending up ‘in the sea' he said ‘at Lanzarote.' He then - or it may have been his co-pilot told me at the departure steps, whilst he proudly saw everyone off - that we had landed at 200 mph - against what would normally been 40-50 mph.
We all waited for some three hours in the transit terminal without news, and then suddenly the departure of the aircraft to Lanzarote was announced. I happened to know by talking Spanish to various airport staff that a local engineer had checked the aircraft flaps within 20 minutes of us arriving, and all appeared OK - a fact that supports what I think to be the next and most startling part of my tale.
We boarded and took off again - scheduled to arrive at Lanzarote within 15 minutes at about, I think 5.30pm. Over our intended destination island the now almost standardised tone of apology came over the loudspeaker and, guess what? Those flaps yet again, would not open - so we were going back to Fuertaventura. The pilot said he had done his best but apparently the fault had could not be not be simulated on the tarmac after the first emergency landing, so the reason for the problem was not clear. He surmised that it might have been that the flaps worked on the ground but not with the full weight of people on board.
So what had been a novelty of a first time bullet-style landing was to be repeated.
The debris, the fire engines, closed eyes etc - but this time it was made worse by the incredible repetition of what should a once (or never) in a lifetime experience. So it was buses again to the terminal - and an indefinite wait for more instructions. The Monarch official again saw us off the plane - but with a glaze this time of embarrassment rather than pride.

Now, for question time - and I'd like a response please by someone in high authority at Monarch. The response if I get one, may deter me from doing what some contacts of mine who work in the aviation industry want me to do here in Spain - and that is file an official complaint to the Guardia Civil, who will alongside other authorities investigate possible negligence, unnecessary risks to passengers in an aircraft by irresponsible flying practices or inept technical services on the ground. Someone gave authority for that aircraft to take off again - only to endure a second emergency landing the same afternoon.

So, an aircraft is diverted and grounded due to an essential item mal-functioning.
The reason for flap failure is unknown and not discovered. A fact later admitted by the pilot to passengers. In non-airline speak - ‘an intermittent fault'.
The same aircraft takes off - the same happens and a further emergency landed is deployed - putting some 200 passengers again, in my opinion, at risk.
WHY SHOULD THIS BE ALLOWED? If a faulty aircraft does not have its fault diagnosed and remedied, should it not be immediately grounded? It's OK driving off in a car that keeps packing up - but surely not a passenger airline!!

On a lesser note, yet still an important issue, can Monarch please explain why passengers who suffered a delay of his magnitude (original arrival time 12pm) were not offered free refreshments?
When I left this fracas at 6pm and continued my journey to Lanzarote by taxi and boat, no one, not even children had been offered as much as a glass of water. What happened after 6 pm I have no idea - maybe the nightmare continued until the following day.

It would be interesting to know if this aircraft - an Airbus 321 (registration G-OZBN) built in 1999, and flying, according to the Spanish press, since 17th December of that year, has had previous similar problems.

I'd be grateful if someone at Monarch could contact me with his or her comments.

K Simpson, Tias, Las Palmas

frightenedflyer,

Welcome onboard
Sorry to hear of your problems. However, aircraft are very complex machines and technical problems do happen from time to time. Everything you describe sounds like standard operating procedure to me and was handled well by the flight deck crew. When flaps aren't available, the aircraft has to land faster than normal. Flaps effectively give the aircraft more lift at slower speeds so it can fly slower for landing. Aircraft wings are designed to be efficient at altitude rather than at slow speeds, hence the addition of flaps and slats for take off and landing. If there's a hydraulic problem, it's standard procedure to approach faster than normal as additional airspeed is required because of no flaps/slats. Because of the increased landing speed, a longer runway is needed as the stopping distance is greater, and as an extra safety measure. Emergency services are put on standby as a precaution as the aircraft is under greater stress than normal and increased braking can cause very hot temperatures in the brakes and may need cooling. With hydraulic issues, you never know if any additional problems may crop up so it's purly a precaution. Emergency services will do an external inspection of the aircraft once landed and before departing the runway to check for any leaks of fluids or other problems. There will have been a lot of communication between the services and flight deck to check things. You weren't in any danger, everything was routine and is well drilled in flight training. I know it's not the most pleasant experience, but everything was handled perfectly from what you describe. I was in a similar situation when landing back in Machester in about 2002 when the JMC Boeing 757-200 we were flying on had a similar problem. I'm sure the engineers did the best they could and thought the problem was resolved, but obviously not. Pre-flight checks identified the recurring problem. I once had a 52 hour flight delay in Jamaica when the hydraulics of the DC10 we had just landed on failed. The engineer thought he'd fixed the problem several times but it eventually took 2 weeks to get aircraft flying again. These things happen I'm afraid, even to new aircraft. Monarch Engineering who look after the aircraft are one of the most respected aircraft engineering companies in the world for their high level of standards.

frightenedflyer wrote:

He then - or it may have been his co-pilot told me at the departure steps, whilst he proudly saw everyone off - that we had landed at 200 mph - against what would normally been 40-50 mph.

170kn is 200mph (actually 195.5mph). The normal landing speed depending on aircraft weight for an A321-200 is between 112kn (45,000kg) and 147kn (77,000kg). This is with full flaps available. With no slats or flaps available, approach speed is Vref + 60kn with touchdown at Vref +50kn. The landing distance factor is 1.8, ie allow 1.8x the normal stopping distance. The aircraft isn't able to sustain flight at anything near as slow as 40-50mph, it would have stalled well before this speed.

You aren't going to get any comments from Monarch on this forum. I suggest you put your email in to a letter and direct it to Complains at Monarch Customer Services, details are on Monarchs website.

Darren

Dazbo covers the main points well. It seems to me to be well carried out precautionary landings with no real drama. Just like to add a few comments.

Brakes were rammed on and loud - but everyone wished and hoped they were good ones.

The Airbus (like Boeing) use autobrake for landing; the brake pressure is determined and applied via instructions from a computer. The pilot would not normally disengage the autobrake until a relatively slow speed.

I don't know - but the noise was frightening - with the sound of a machine gun attacking the underside of the plane

Almost certainly the antiskid system doing what it is designed to do. You get a similar effect on a car fitted with ABS when braking on an icy surface. Runways are regularly checked for debris; had there been debris on the runway I would be surprised if a previous aircraft had not reported it. The runway would then have been closed until it was removed.
With modern aircraft most systems are computer controlled/ monitored. Often it is a transient computer glitch that gives this sort of problem. Airbus aircraft feature a computer diagnostic check to ensure that systems are functioning normally; the aircraft would not have departed without a systems normal indication.
In my book much ado about not a lot

Well done to the Monarch crew of zb626 , a situation handled in a textbook professional manner.

Not seen partyboy_uk on here for a while and just wondering if the latest IFE listings are available anywhere

cheers